Jump to content

Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Images

User:PrinceOfCanada has requested that a discussion about the images on this article no longer take place at his talk page; the discussion is thus moving to here. At the last point, PrinceOfCanada was asked to explain why left-aligned images can not go at the end of a section. --G2bambino (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop being dishonest. I requested that you no longer post at my talk page. As for left-aligned images, I never at any point said that they 'cannot' go at the end of a section. However, you placing them at the end of a section, as I have tried patiently to explain to you on repeated occasions, is a form of formatting that you can only guarantee looks correct on your computer. Prince of Canada t | c 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Strange. Earlier it wasn't a matter of correctness, it was, as you put it, "common sense." Before we continue, can you be clear on which version of your objection you'd like to stick to? --G2bambino (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It's both. Can the snark. Prince of Canada t | c 18:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Both now? Well, we can dismiss "common sense" because what you think is common sense is not what everyone else thinks it is. So, that leaves us with correctness. From your statements one can only deduce that you see some kind of "incorrectness" when left-aligned images are placed at the end of sections. Could you elaborate, please? --G2bambino (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Nobody thinks it's common sense to have images in the sections to which they are most relevant? Wonderful, then I'll move the image of EIIR's wedding on her page down to her Arms section, shall I? Don't be ridiculous. As to elaboration? No. I have explained to you a dozen times how formatting works. That you are functionally incapable of comprehending it is not my concern, though I doubt, based on your history, that you are so much 'incapable' as 'pretending not to'. Your usual 'debating' style is to wear down your opponent with irrelevancies, ignoring what they say, and needless pedantry until they give in. I have made my point clear on my talk page; I suggest you re-read it. Prince of Canada t | c 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say anything of the sort. But you are mixing up your contexts: are you speaking about page space or html space? You seem to have an issue with left-aligned images being placed at the end of the preceeding section to which they're relevant. As they appear perfectly close enough to the section to which they're related in page space (right, smack in it, in fact), the mystery is: why can't they go at the end of the preceeding section in html? --G2bambino (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Because you're playing games, and you know it. You have some sort of deep-seated need, apparently, to have left-aligned images. When it is pointed out to you that left-aligned images at the beginning of sections look awkward (due to title placement), you merely move them two lines up, which on most computers will appear the same. Why? Because the image begins rendering where the code is. In this case, at the bottom of the section. With no text after it, the image will 'push' down into the next section, resulting in looking almost precisely the same as having it in the correct section and left-aligned. And again, because of the way formatting works, it makes more sense for the code for images to be contained in the relevant section. Of course, you know all this, which is precisely why you placed the images there, to score some sort of point. Prince of Canada t | c 19:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If you think that trying to sort something out is playing games, then, sure, whatever you want. But, what we call it is irrelevant. I moved the images because you said they weren't supposed to be there, and that claim was backed up by WP guidelines; and, yes, it altered the header placement; and, yes, the altered header placement was the only change. But, so what? The cheatsheet simply said that an image shouldn't (note the inherent flexibility in the word) be at the top left of a section, not that it can't be at the bottom of the preceeding. In fact, what the Manual of Style says (trumping your user-created cheatsheet) is "Do not place left-aligned images directly below subsection-level... headings, as this can disconnect the heading from the text it precedes." So, what I had done before did violate this, but the moves I made after fit the letter of the manual to a tee. Thus, you haven't a leg to stand on here. --G2bambino (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This is your typical wikilawyering; following the letter while ignoring the spirit. "as this can disconnect the heading from the text it precedes." can also happen when the image is placed at the end of the section, depending on screen resolution, and cannot happen when right-aligned in the section it actually belongs in for the very simple code reasons I have already explained to you. Why do you ignore everything that's said to you? Prince of Canada t | c 20:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Disagreeing isn't ignoring. Try again. --G2bambino (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I sure liked to help end this dispute, but I haven't a clue what the dispute is about. Perhaps it's best to let you both work it out. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Look at my talk page, GoodDay. Prince of Canada t | c 19:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I've ran into something like this before. Images on my screen weren't presented the same on another's screen. If I remember correctly? I agreed to allow the image to be shown so as it appeared OK on the other person screen. I figured it was a sacrifice I could live with. PS- Would it be possible if both of you presented your image examples here - so I could peek at them? GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for attempting assistance, GD, but that isn't really what this particular discussion is about (if I'm reading PoC's words correctly). What you're alluding to is more what's been going on at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, and PoC already knows how it appears on other people's screens. --G2bambino (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Would yas give me a quick summary of what's the dispute? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I can. I'm actually a bit perplexed as to what Prince's issue is myself. --G2bambino (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(indent)Basically the issue is this: G2 doesn't understand, despite having said so himself in the past to me, that different computers will render webpages differently. Accordingly, editing image placement so that it looks 'correct' on his computer is therefore no guarantee that the display will look good anywhere else. Which is why I moved images at the beginning of subs to be right-aligned; this ensures the image will display in the relevant section, no matter how else the computer renders the page. G2's approach is to shuffle images around until they look 'right' on his computer, and too bad for how anyone else sees it. His assertion that he is 'perplexed' is a baldfaced lie, as the issue has been explained to him repeatedly. Prince of Canada t | c 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I checked the recent 'edit history' of this article, to understand the dispute. OK, Prince's edit put Elizabeth Canadian image on the left side of the content, G2's puts it on the right side. Personally, I've no problem with the image being on the 'right or left side' of the content. Why? because it doesn't disrupt the content. Anyways, that's just my opinon. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You've got them backwards, but close enough. The issue is that G2 refuses to comprehend how formatting works, and refuses to follow what he himself said to me. He keeps ignoring that. I couldn't even begin to imagine why. Prince of Canada t | c 20:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, there's nothing to say that an image can't be left-aligned, so long as it doesn't immediately follow the subsection-level headings. Following this guideline does not produce any disruption to the article, and it will appear more-or-less the same on yours as it does mine. All we're discussing here is the difference between this:

Example 1

Morbi dictum. Vestibulum adipiscing pulvinar quam. In aliquam rhoncus sem. In mi erat, sodales eget, pretium interdum, malesuada ac, augue. Aliquam sollicitudin, massa ut vestibulum posuere, massa arcu elementum purus, eget vehicula lorem metus vel libero. Sed in dui id lectus commodo elementum. Etiam rhoncus tortor. Proin a lorem. Ut nec velit. Quisque varius. Proin nonummy justo dictum sapien tincidunt iaculis. Duis lobortis pellentesque risus. Aenean ut tortor imperdiet dolor scelerisque bibendum. Fusce metus nibh, adipiscing id, ullamcorper at, consequat a, nulla.

Phasellus orci. Etiam tempor elit auctor magna. Nullam nibh velit, vestibulum ut, eleifend non, pulvinar eget, enim. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos. Integer velit mauris, convallis a, congue sed, placerat id, odio. Etiam venenatis tortor sed lectus. Nulla non orci. In egestas porttitor quam. Duis nec diam eget nibh mattis tempus. Curabitur accumsan pede id odio. Nunc vitae libero. Aenean condimentum diam et turpis. Vestibulum non risus. Ut consectetuer gravida elit. Aenean est nunc, varius sed, aliquam eu, feugiat sit amet, metus. Sed venenatis odio id eros.

Phasellus placerat purus vel mi. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Donec aliquam porta odio. Ut facilisis. Donec ornare ipsum ut massa. In tellus tellus, imperdiet ac, accumsan at, aliquam vitae, velit.

And this:

Example 2

Morbi dictum. Vestibulum adipiscing pulvinar quam. In aliquam rhoncus sem. In mi erat, sodales eget, pretium interdum, malesuada ac, augue. Aliquam sollicitudin, massa ut vestibulum posuere, massa arcu elementum purus, eget vehicula lorem metus vel libero. Sed in dui id lectus commodo elementum. Etiam rhoncus tortor. Proin a lorem. Ut nec velit. Quisque varius. Proin nonummy justo dictum sapien tincidunt iaculis. Duis lobortis pellentesque risus. Aenean ut tortor imperdiet dolor scelerisque bibendum. Fusce metus nibh, adipiscing id, ullamcorper at, consequat a, nulla.

Phasellus orci. Etiam tempor elit auctor magna. Nullam nibh velit, vestibulum ut, eleifend non, pulvinar eget, enim. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos. Integer velit mauris, convallis a, congue sed, placerat id, odio. Etiam venenatis tortor sed lectus. Nulla non orci. In egestas porttitor quam. Duis nec diam eget nibh mattis tempus. Curabitur accumsan pede id odio. Nunc vitae libero. Aenean condimentum diam et turpis. Vestibulum non risus. Ut consectetuer gravida elit. Aenean est nunc, varius sed, aliquam eu, feugiat sit amet, metus. Sed venenatis odio id eros.

Phasellus placerat purus vel mi. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Donec aliquam porta odio. Ut facilisis. Donec ornare ipsum ut massa. In tellus tellus, imperdiet ac, accumsan at, aliquam vitae, velit.

The latter is correct, while the former is not. PoC will accept neither. --G2bambino (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. The latter is only technically correct, as the results are virtually identical. And you are still ignoring the fact that you yourself said that pages display differently on different computers, and indeed reverted my edits! Pictures should, this is basic logic and common sense, go in the section to which they are most related. Formatting so that it does so on your screen doesn't work, as you yourself said. Formatting so that it will do so on everyone's screens does work. Is that clear enough yet? Prince of Canada t | c 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Wrong according to whom? If its technically correct then there isn't a damn thing wrong with it. Does the image in the second example above appear expanded in the middle of the right hand side of the page with the text dispersed all over the place on your screen, or something? That must be the case, lest you enjoy going on and on and on about nothing for the attention. --G2bambino (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Well that's more abuse, excellent, well done. Answer me one question. Just one. What is it that you do not comprehend about "And you are still ignoring the fact that you yourself said that pages display differently on different computers, and indeed reverted my edits! Pictures should, this is basic logic and common sense, go in the section to which they are most related. Formatting so that it does so on your screen doesn't work, as you yourself said. Formatting so that it will do so on everyone's screens does work. " ? Prince of Canada t | c 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The pictures do go in the sections to which they're most related, in the space that's most important, and as per instructions in the Manual of Style. Unless you can prove otherwise, and so far you haven't. --G2bambino (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
On your computer they do. They categorically will not render that way on all computers, due to the location of the code. What part of this are you not understanding? "Formatting so that it does so on your screen doesn't work, as you yourself said. Formatting so that it will do so on everyone's screens does work." ??? Prince of Canada t | c 20:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You were asked to prove otherwise to my claim above. Can you or can you not? --G2bambino (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That is just proof that you really don't understand how formatting works. If you did, well, frankly we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Did you or did you not say yourself, quote:

But, you do realise that it doesn't look the same on every computer, right? It all depends on the size of your screen. --G2bambino (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Has the way computers worked changed in the last 60-odd days? Prince of Canada t | c 21:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Oh dear. Perhaps, in order to get the relevant information out of you, we'll have to slow this down and take it one step at a time. Please answer this question: In the above example 2, does the image appear in the relevant section? A simple yes or no, at this point, will suffice. --G2bambino (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. So that'll be half past never, I suspect. Prince of Canada t | c 21:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Heh.. okay, then. The answer to your question is: no. Your turn now. --G2bambino (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Answered below. So. Given that how computers function has not changed since you made that statement, why precisely should edits you make that are idiosyncratic to your computer be kept? Especially over edits that aim for functionality across all computers? Prince of Canada t | c 21:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
To answer that question, the point of edits being ideosyncratic to my computer would first have to be verified, which is exactly what I'm trying to do through my line of questioning. You offered some kind of answer below; so, I will try and adjust the example to suit your concerns.

Morbi dictum. Vestibulum adipiscing pulvinar quam. In aliquam rhoncus sem. In mi erat, sodales eget, pretium interdum, malesuada ac, augue. Aliquam sollicitudin, massa ut vestibulum posuere, massa arcu elementum purus, eget vehicula lorem metus vel libero. Sed in dui id lectus commodo elementum. Etiam rhoncus tortor. Proin a lorem. Ut nec velit. Quisque varius. Proin nonummy justo dictum sapien tincidunt iaculis. Duis lobortis pellentesque risus. Aenean ut tortor imperdiet dolor scelerisque bibendum. Fusce metus nibh, adipiscing id, ullamcorper at, consequat a, nulla.

Phasellus orci. Etiam tempor elit auctor magna. Nullam nibh velit, vestibulum ut, eleifend non, pulvinar eget, enim. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos. Integer velit mauris, convallis a, congue sed, placerat id, odio. Etiam venenatis tortor sed lectus. Nulla non orci. In egestas porttitor quam. Duis nec diam eget nibh mattis tempus. Curabitur accumsan pede id odio. Nunc vitae libero. Aenean condimentum diam et turpis. Vestibulum non risus. Ut consectetuer gravida elit. Aenean est nunc, varius sed, aliquam eu, feugiat sit amet, metus. Sed venenatis odio id eros.

Phasellus placerat purus vel mi. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Donec aliquam porta odio. Ut facilisis. Donec ornare ipsum ut massa. In tellus tellus, imperdiet ac, accumsan at, aliquam vitae, velit.

Example 3

Morbi dictum. Vestibulum adipiscing pulvinar quam. In aliquam rhoncus sem. In mi erat, sodales eget, pretium interdum, malesuada ac, augue. Aliquam sollicitudin, massa ut vestibulum posuere, massa arcu elementum purus, eget vehicula lorem metus vel libero. Sed in dui id lectus commodo elementum. Etiam rhoncus tortor. Proin a lorem. Ut nec velit. Quisque varius. Proin nonummy justo dictum sapien tincidunt iaculis. Duis lobortis pellentesque risus. Aenean ut tortor imperdiet dolor scelerisque bibendum. Fusce metus nibh, adipiscing id, ullamcorper at, consequat a, nulla.

Phasellus orci. Etiam tempor elit auctor magna. Nullam nibh velit, vestibulum ut, eleifend non, pulvinar eget, enim. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos. Integer velit mauris, convallis a, congue sed, placerat id, odio. Etiam venenatis tortor sed lectus. Nulla non orci. In egestas porttitor quam. Duis nec diam eget nibh mattis tempus. Curabitur accumsan pede id odio. Nunc vitae libero. Aenean condimentum diam et turpis. Vestibulum non risus. Ut consectetuer gravida elit. Aenean est nunc, varius sed, aliquam eu, feugiat sit amet, metus. Sed venenatis odio id eros.

Phasellus placerat purus vel mi. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Donec aliquam porta odio. Ut facilisis. Donec ornare ipsum ut massa. In tellus tellus, imperdiet ac, accumsan at, aliquam vitae, velit.

Now: In the above example 3, does the image appear in the relevant section? A simple yes or no, at this point, should suffice. --G2bambino (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It does, yes. Which is irrelevant, because 1) again it is an example constrained within a box, and 2) it cannot be guaranteed that it always will. See your edits & screenshots from EIIR for an example. Or is that different somehow? Prince of Canada t | c 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant?? The whole point of this entire argument is your claim that it somehow screws up the article's layout, yet, you haven't a shred of evidence that it does! Your whole position is based on nothing but speculation! Come back when there's an actual problem we can look at, not "it might happen somewhere somehow" assumptions. --G2bambino (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you not read? The box example is irrelevant because it doesn't actually show the actual conditions on the page. This, however, does.

Observe how the image does not sit properly in one section or the other, and how it mucks with the formatting below, despite your apparent intention to have it show up in the section below. Notice also how my formatting guarantees that it shows up in the correct section. Notice also how you continue to ignore that. Prince of Canada t | c 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks perfectly fine to me; fits Manual of Style too. But apparantly doesn't work with WP accessability guidelines. So, the argument is over, regardless. --G2bambino (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay's suggestion

I honestly have no problem with either. However, I've a novel idea - I recommend G2's images be applied to Royal Biography articles & PoC's be applied to Royal non-Biography articles (or visa-versa; which you both agree on). GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That, I'm afraid, won't resolve anything. And, it actually isn't necessary. There's nothing wrong with the corrections I made to my earlier mistakes. --G2bambino (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No. It's not about 'my images' or 'his images', it's about ensuring that display is as consistent as is reasonably possible (which my formatting does), it's about ensuring that formatting for one specific computer (which is what G2's formatting does) isn't allowed to override basic considerations of function, it's about ensuring that images render in the sections to which they are related every single time (which my formatting does), it's about not having images render in the right places depending on screen resolution and browser width (which is what G2's formatting does), and finally, it's about making G2 understand that if he is going to inform someone that all computers display differently, the same goes for him. Prince of Canada t | c 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It's the best solution I could cook up. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
it won't resolve anything because it does not address the udnerlying issue: G2's lack of comprehension of statements he himself has made. Prince of Canada t | c 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You both seem headed towards disaster, gentlemen. I recommend you both reconsider my sololution. PS- at least you both agree on disliking it. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Would shrinking the Images sizes help? GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, because that still fails to address the basic concern, which is that G2 is not understanding how formatting works. Despite having said, himself, that pages will render differently on different computers. He refuses to address that. Prince of Canada t | c 20:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with G2 on the "commonsense" issue. If the image and text render in the way G2 shows in his second example, the relationship between the image and the section below it is clear. As to the rendering issue, is it rendering incorrectly for Prince? Regardless, what does Prince believe it would look like incorrectly rendered? These questions may be answered on either or both of your talk pages, but I will not look to the user talk pages for answers because it is unfair to expect users to look to such discussions after bringing the discussion here.

Finally, can we stop with the ad hominem stuff? It makes it very difficult to make sense of this when a third party's reasonable questions are answered with "the problem is so-and-so doesn't unstand (or refuses to understand) X". Frankly, many of us do not understand the HTML coding and rendering at issue here. At the same time, it is unfair to expect us to simply defer to what someone, even someone we trust, says about formatting. Being specific about what problems might result is important for us to understand and resolve the issue. -Rrius (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

is it rendering incorrectly for Prince? That is the key question that Prince will not answer. I can't yet tell if it does or doesn't, or if he merely thinks I've misread the MoS. Very confusing. --G2bambino (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


Saying he doesn't understand isn't an ad hominem, it is simple fact. He does not understand, or chooses to pretend not to understand, something he himself has said. He also continues to refuse to address that.
Moving on. G2's examples above are not illustrative of the problem, which is why I am not bothering to answer the question as they are self-contained boxes (which thus constrains how they render, ensuring that they will show up just about the same everywhere) and not an actual page with content above and below. To put it really simply, code renders line by line, like so:
Text
Text
Header
Image
Text
etc.

Now, here's G2's version

Text
Text
Image
Header
Text
Given that the image will render before the header, the header can now wrap the image, thus being 'pushed over'. The same goes for the text. And depending on the size of the image, the amount of text, etc, this can split the text away from the header--directly prohibited by MOS. So now the image may or may not, depending on screen size, resolution, and browser width, show up in the section for which it is intended.
Doing it the first way guarantees that no matter what your screen size, resolution, or browser width the image will render in the correct section. It's that simple. Prince of Canada t | c 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Depending on the size of the image, the amount of text, etc, this can split the text away from the header. Where is the evidence of that? --G2bambino (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Stop wikilawyering and address questions I have asked you. Until you can prove that you understand how formatting works, and until you can explain why cosmetic edits idiosyncratic to your computer should stand while you reverted ones that I made (and you've said already that this is vengeance; it's not, don't bother making the accusation again. I learned from the formatting mistake on July 4), there is absolutely no point in engaging you any further on this topic. Prince of Canada t | c 21:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
So, then, you have no evidence that "Depending on the size of the image, the amount of text, etc, this can split the text away from the header." Supporting evidence is what you need to give your claims validity. It would help everyone understand just what is this problem you claim exists. --G2bambino (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I have already explained, repeatedly. Your failure to comprehend is no longer my problem. I will happily engage with any other users who actually wish to engage in discussion. Prince of Canada t | c 21:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Expanation isn't evidence. Thus, we can all take it from your silence in the face of repeated requests for evidence that you actually have none. That should bring this discussion to a swift (and long overdue) close. --G2bambino (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The easiest evidence--your screenshots of the EIIR page--have been deleted. Your silence in the face of repeated requests for answers regarding why your edits should stay while you reverted mine also shows something, but I'm pretty certain you won't like it. More to the point, whether or not it's rendering incorrectly on my system doesn't matter, because that is just as idiosyncratic as yours. Once again, and for the last time, maybe you'll get it this time: formatting by making sure it looks perfect on your screen based on tweaking where an image goes outside of the section where it actually belongs does not work due to idiosyncrasies of screen size, resolution, and browser width. You yourself have said that to me and are now conveniently ignoring it. One has to wonder why. Prince of Canada t | c 21:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Different articles, different issues. It's okay, we get it: you've nothing. Thanks for wasting everyone's time. --G2bambino (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It's the same freaking issue!!!! YOU claim that the way you format images makes things show up correctly. YOU ARE WRONG. YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG. DEAL WITH IT. Prince of Canada t | c 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Au contraire: you proved me right. Cheers! --G2bambino (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Accessibility says both that "the image should be inside the section it belongs to (after the header and after any link to other article), and not just before the header" and that we should "not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this can disconnect the heading from the text it precedes, when read with larger fonts". If someone thinks that this is no longer a risk (or never was), with any hardware/software combination, then the arguments should probably be taken to Wikipedia talk:Accessibility for a possible change in the guideline; otherwise both formats seem definitely prohibited. Previous discussions on this at MOS: 1, 2, 3, 4. -- Jao (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Game, set, match. Ta. I'll fix the article now. Prince of Canada t | c 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, whatever floats your boat, Prince. You didn't come up with the accessability guideline. You came up with... ah yes, nothing. Thanks to Jao, though, for finding something concrete; it was exactly what was needed. --G2bambino (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Images, again

User:PrinceOfCanada is now claiming erroneous formatting of certain images; namely here and here. As it was already established at this talk page that: Wikipedia:Accessibility says both that "the image should be inside the section it belongs to (after the header and after any link to other article), and not just before the header" and that we should "not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this can disconnect the heading from the text it precedes, when read with larger fonts", PoC now needs to explain why the image placement he objects to is in violation of the above. --G2bambino (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not, wikilawyer. However, look at the screenshot I provided. Image placement--oh God, I can't believe I'm having to explain this again--the way you were doing it causes messed up formatting on some computers. Right-aligning the image does not. Look at the freaking screenshot. It's not hard. Here, I'll put it here again:

Do you see where the formatting is messed up? Yes, that is idiosyncratic to my computer and my roommate's (again, two browsers, two screen resolutions, and tested in one browser on my roommate's computer), but the move guarantees it will not happen anywhere. Prince of Canada t | c 23:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly as I see it (well, saw; that's an old example). Perfectly correct. Unless you have some guideline that says the headers and text should not wrap around images? --G2bambino (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks awful and it violates large parts of the point of not left-aligning under headers, namely, messing up the overall layout of the whole page. Stop wikilawyering. You claim that WP:Civil doesn't apply to you, so why exactly should the solely-to-the-letter ideas of another Wiki policy apply? Make up your mind. Prince of Canada t | c 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks awful is your POV, so let's stick to what we have before us in black and white: the guideline says that we should "not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this can disconnect the heading from the text it precedes, when read with larger fonts." I did not place the left-aligned images directly below the second level headings. "The point" of the guideline is not subject to your personal interpretations; it is an instruction, which I have followed to the letter. Unless there is some other detail that says a left-aligned image cannot be placed following the first paragraph below a second level heading, then there's nowhere you can go with this. --G2bambino (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
At what point, precisely--show me a diff!--did I say you placed the left-aligned image below a 2H? Come on, I know you can show me. Oh.. you can't. That's because I never said it. What I did say is that it looks awful, and messes up the formatting below. There is no doubt about the second point, and you can argue the first as much as you like; I don't care. Fact is, get consensus to change it back if you really must. I am sick of your abuse. Prince of Canada t | c 00:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter whether you said that or not; what you did claim was "erroneous formatting." You've so far been unable, yet again, to point out my error, which I'm perfectly willing to accept if the accusation could be supported. If, however, I did not make an error (as in, violating any formatting guidelines), then this all comes down, again, to "it looks awful," which is simply your POV. I guess you have a penchant for having the headers always clinging to the left-hand margin, or something. But, there isn't a requirement that they do so, is there? I've never seen one, and plenty of articles on Wikipedia don't demonstrate any need; regard the featured articles Australian Green Tree Frog, Henry Moore, Nauru, and King Vulture. That's just a tiny, tiny sample; so, if there's some infraction, then you've a lot of work ahead of you. --G2bambino (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"(as in, violating any formatting guidelines)" ← Show me the diff where I said that, please. Your strawmen are showing. Like I said, get consensus and change it back if you feel so very strongly about it. I give up. As you have done in every single debate I have seen you take part in, you just bully and bully and ignore what people say and twist their words until they give up, and you get to do whatever you want. So fine. You win again. I give up, and I am considering leaving the entire project, solely because of you and your odious behaviour. Prince of Canada t | c 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

One more time: "showing erroneous formatting". Is there some way "erroneous formatting" is not "violating formatting guidelines"? Regardless, I don't need a consensus to change it back; you disrupted the stauts quo, ergo it's you who needs to defend your edits. Your choice, of course. --G2bambino (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes. It's erroneous. Wrong. Bad. I never said 'violating guidelines' and you know it. but it doesn't matter. You win. You've chased me away. Thank you for completely destroying for me something that I was really enjoying. Well done. Bye. Prince of Canada t | c 00:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Meh. A tad dramatic, if you ask me. You made some constructive edits; but, if you don't want to have your claims scrutinised, well, then, as you wish. --G2bambino (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Images, again, again

What's happening here in terms of User:PrinceOfCanada disputing the placement of images is parallel to his disputes at Monarchy of Barbados; thus, the discussion at Talk:Monarchy of Barbados#Image covers both articles. --G2bambino (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A MedCab case is now open here. --G2bambino (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To avoid another edit war?

Wait until the MedCab has concluded, please. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding another edit war is easy: abide by what you have already agreed to! Prince of Canada t | c 21:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is agreed to, until the MedCab has concluded. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the text. G2 has, indeed, agreed to many things. Prince of Canada t | c 21:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Many things is not everything. Regardless, this page will likely be edited again once MedCab is complete. --G2bambino (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The only changes I made were with regards to the items with which you had already agreed. To wit:
  1. Left aligned images should not be used at the start of a section
  2. Left and right aligned images directly opposite each other tend to distract the reader and should be avoided (staggered left/right images that overlap are OK)
  3. Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned.
Unless you're saying you didn't agree to those? Prince of Canada t | c 22:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Not completely, no. But, that's still not the point, and you know it. It doesn't matter anyway; this discussion should never have had to have taken place. --G2bambino (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes or no: you did or did not agree to those things? Prince of Canada t | c 22:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Have fun, folks. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal - Outcome

As many regulars will be aware, the ongoing disputes (on this page and others connected to the Commonwealth Royal Family) surounding image placement have been the subject of a Mediation Cabal request.

I regret that the process has not, to date, resulted in an outcome that both parties feel able to unambiguously endorse.

By any binary pass/fail judgement, we have failed.

However, the journey that we have travelled has not been without achievements.

Both parties to the mediation have worked within a fairly draconian set of rules that I imposed at the start (with one or two exceptions, but we are none of us perfect) to thrash out the issues, and hone down the areas of disagreement considerably. Given that the days prior to the mediation looked more like the start of all-out warfare than any attempt to reach agreement, it has taken a massive leap of faith all round for the parties to get this far, and they are both to be commended for their commitment to the process.

I would express hope here that they both take on board how much more they were able to achieve through discourse than through battles, and endeavour to continue their future interactions in the same vein, even without having a referee to remind them.

The fact that both have taken steps to remove content from their user space that could be considered as unpleasant towards the other, and have offered apologies to each other is, in my view, evidence that they both wish to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, and that ultimately they will find a way of accomodating each other.

The remaining issue

Whilst there are several areas that G2 and PoC continue to have different views on, there remains but a single area where we have not achieved some form of accomodation, the question of left aligned images overlapping into the next section.

It is clear to me that, at the root of the differences here, is the fact that G2 and PoC each use display resolutions that are outside the range of resolutions used by most editors and readers. This has the effect of making it difficult for each to visualise why the other has problems with their prefered layout.

G2 sees images spanning sections as a minor thing, because it merely displaces the next section header to the right a little, but on a lower resolution screen, this displacement may be about a third of the screen.

PoC sees a bit of white space as a minor thing, but on higher resolution screens, it could result in more white space than text.

We have looked at Policies and Guidelines, which are rather vague on who may be right. G2 rightly points out that WP:PIC depracates introducing white space as a solution to image stack, but PoC equally correctly points out that it does so in a context that implies that if image stack exists, it is something that should be done if there is no other solution available.

I have made suggestions which may well have the effect of making the point moot, by increasing the space used by text without introducing white space. None of this is guaranteed to work, but it may reduce the number of cases where there is an issue.

In the circumstances, I have taken the principles and guidelines that the parties were unable to agree upon, modified them slightly to take account of subsequent discussions, and reproduced them below.

Principles

  1. Left aligned images should not be used immediately at the start of a section.
  2. Left and right aligned images directly opposite each other tend to distract the reader and should be avoided (staggered left/right images that overlap are OK).
  3. Image stacking that overlaps into the following section on any brower (not just the browser used by the editor) is to be avoided at all costs.
  4. The gallery feature is available where there are many images that should be included.
  5. White space is unwelcome, and we should avoid it if possible (but not at the expense of allowing an image stack to invade the next section).

Guidelines

In these guidelines, the likelihood of an event should be taken by reference to a 1024x768 screen resolution.

  1. Any decorative images should be culled.
  2. Where there is scope to do so, text should be expanded to increase the scope to add images.
  3. Where there is scope to do so, additional paragraph breaks can be inserted to both expand the text size without introducing white space, and bring forward the first opportunity for a left-aligned image. This measure should not involve the introduction of arbitrary paragraph breaks.
  4. Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned.
  5. The next image (or first image if the infobox encroaches) should be placed at the start of the second paragraph in a section, left aligned.
  6. Subsequent images should be placed alternately left and right (infobox permitting). If an infobox is likely to encroach into a section, we should only add left aligned images every other paragraph until the text will have passed the foot of the infobox.
  7. Where this is still likely to cause image stacking into the next section, images should be prioritised, and the lower priority images placed in a gallery at the foot of the section.
  8. Other than cases where the infobox is likely to go right through a section, sections where there is a risk of image stack may be closed with {{clear}} to ensure that even on odd broswers we don't get image stack.
  9. Where an infobox is likely to go right through a section, and we are using only left-aligned images, we should use {{clearleft}} rather than {{clear}}.
  10. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which relies of editors improving each others work. As such, it is always open to editors to attempt to improve the work of others. However, such changes should not have the effect of increasing white space or causing images to span sections.
  11. Where the two parties are unable to agree on the layout of a particular section, they should both disengage, and invite other editors to decide.
  12. There may be cases where all parties agree that, in a particular instance, image overlap is not a problem. Where this is the case, WP:IAR says that we should go with consensus!

Where now?

Mediation exists to try and bring two parties to a mutual agreement. It does not seek to (and is not able to) impose a solution.

If the parties wish, they can take this further along the dispute resolution process. I would urge them to consider whether they wish to spend time bogged down in process, or if they would rather get on with improving Wikipedia.

As such, I would suggest;

  • Others review the proposed guidelines, and work with the parties to see if there are in fact ways in which we can bring them together.
  • Both accept that there is a shortage of guidance on the issue in WP:MOS, and engage at WT:MOS to seek consensus to expand the guidelines.

At this point, I will be closing the MEDCAB, as I don't believe that we can go further with just the three of us. Thank you to both G2 and PoC for putting up with me as mediator, and I wish you all the very best of luck in reaching an amicable solution here.

If I can help further, please shout up. I will, however be unavailable from Wednesday until October 12th. Sorry, but I'm getting married, and the future Mrs Mayall says "no internet on Honeymoon"

Mayalld (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Images (x3)

PoC, you are not adhering what we agreed on at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15 Monarchy of Canada. Let's review them again:

  1. Left aligned images should not be used immediately at the start of a section.
  2. Left and right aligned images directly opposite each other tend to distract the reader and should be avoided (staggered left/right images that overlap are OK)
  3. Image stacking that overlaps into the following section on any brower (not just the browser used by the editor) is to be avoided at all costs.
  4. The gallery feature is available where there are many images that should be included.
  5. White space is unwelcome, and we should avoid it if possible (but not at the expense of allowing an image stack to invade the next section).
  6. Any decorative images should be culled.
  7. Where there is scope to do so, text should be expanded to increase the scope to add images.
  8. Where there is scope to do so, additional paragraph breaks can be inserted to both expand the text size without introducing white space, and bring forward the first opportunity for a left-aligned image.
  9. Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned.
  10. The next image (or first image if the infobox encroaches) should be placed at the start of the second paragraph in a section, left aligned. Subsequent images should be placed alternately left and right (infobox permitting)."

I have, per 3, removed all instances of stacked images, and, per 2, removed any instances of left- and right-aligned images directly opposite each other. This also works per 6.

No, per 9 it should be at the beginning of the section, right-aligned, as no infobox can encroach. I'm on 1024x768 resolution, which is what layout should be optomized for.
  • Image:Ottawa-1939.jpg: Per 10, this image should be left-aligned, and, per 1 and 10, at the start of the second paragraph of the section.
As above, but since there is absolutely no chance of it spanning into the next section, I'm willing to leave it.
  • Image:Roy-fam-2007.jpg: Per 10, this image should be left-aligned, and, per 1 and 10, at the start of the second paragraph of the section.
As above. Prince of Canada t | c 18:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Images spanning into following sections is not of import at this moment; that is a matter yet to be decided on. What seems to be the problem here is the interpretation of "first image"; I read it as the first image in the article, whereas it seems you are reading it as the first image in any given section. Your take, however, doesn't work with the left-right alternation pattern of 10, and, in fact, will cause image stacking rather than eliminating it as per 3. It would also mean that you should object to the placement of more than just the three images you drew out above; as each section only has one image, your version of things would see every image right-aligned. --G2bambino (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
"Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned." seems pretty unambiguous; 'of the section' implies that the only thing being discussed is sections, not the entire article. I'd remind you that MOS says the same thing. Prince of Canada t | c 18:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It is unambiguous if you don't include the rest of the agreed upon guidelines. First, though, could you please remind me where MoS says that the first image in a section cannot be left-aligned as long as it comes at least at the start of the second paragraph? --G2bambino (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Here. Accessibility, not MOS, sorry. Prince of Canada t | c 18:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see where it says the first image in a section cannot be left-aligned as long as it comes at least at the start of the second paragraph. --G2bambino (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
<!-- CORRECT CODE -->
== Foo bars ==
{{main|Foo bar}}
{{cleanup-section}}

[[Image:...|Typical Foo bar]]

A '''foo bar''' ...

Is the section structure prescribed by MOS. Note that the image comes before the text. Prince of Canada t | c 18:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a direction made by WP:ACCESS. However, it does not say that the first image in a section cannot be left-aligned as long as it comes at least at the start of the second paragraph. I might venture to say that you are reading the WP:ACCESS example too literally; if one were to follow it as you say should be done, all sections of Wikipedia could only have one image, which must be right-aligned, and placed between the header and the textual body of the section. As WP:MOS guides us on how to place left-aligned images as the first image in a section, this interpretation, however, cannot be the case. --G2bambino (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It does, however, very clearly show that the first image in a section should be at the beginning of the section. Which Mayalld also said. Which is listed above; "Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned." Can we drop this now, or do we need another MedCab? Prince of Canada t | c 19:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
No, this will not simply be dropped. The WP:ACCESS example does not say that the first image in a section cannot be a left-aligned one as long as it comes at least at the start of the second paragraph; it merely illustrates how an image that comes at the head of a section should be placed. Further, both WP:MOS and WP:ACCESS say: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below subsection-level (=== or greater) headings, as this can disconnect the heading from the text it precedes." WP:ACCESS says to move the image "to another relevant location," which WP:MOS outlines as "shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two." That means that left-aligned images can be the first to follow the header, as long as they are placed as guided. --G2bambino (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
"Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned." You implicitly have agreed to this. Your reason for not doing so now is...? Prince of Canada t | c 19:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the MedCab page: no, I did not agree to that. I said: "Unclear: does 'first image' mean the first in the article, or first in any section?" That question was never answered. It seems, then, that I jumped the gun today, in my haste for a resolution. It gives me no pleasure to say that it seems we still have more than one point to disagree on. --G2bambino (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It is abundantly clear what that particular statement means. Given the use of "placed at the head of the section", as well as "additional paragraph breaks can be inserted to both expand the text size without introducing white space, and bring forward the first opportunity for a left-aligned image" and most especially "The next image (or first image if the infobox encroaches) should be placed at the start of the second paragraph in a section, left aligned" all very, very clearly explain the meaning of "Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned." It is obvious from reading the list that Mayalld posted above (as opposed to your reordering) that there is a progression from point 1 to 2, and so on to the final point, listed from simplest and most desirable option all the way to how to resolve an impasse should the preceding steps not work. Prince of Canada t | c 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see you have now crossed that section out. So, another MedCab, then? Prince of Canada t | c 19:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The lack of clarity lies in a single word: the section is not the same as a section. I read point 4 of Mayalld's list as being specific about which section it refers to; namely, that in which the first image of an article sits. If he had meant the suggestion to apply more generally, it would have been written as: Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of a section, right aligned. Because there is such a fine, but important, difference between the and a is why I said the statement was unclear. I have subsequently crossed it out here as I was obviously mistaken in thinking it was one of the points we agreed on. --G2bambino (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
And you're ignoring that point in the context of the other points I raised above because why? You said "It is unambiguous if you don't include the rest of the agreed upon guidelines." Well.. I included the rest of the guidelines, which only serves to clarify even further how unambiguous the statement is. So your objection is...? Prince of Canada t | c 20:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[De-indent] I don't read the other points as contradicting my reading of #4 of Mayalld's list. --G2bambino (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay.. so when you said "It is unambiguous if you don't include the rest of the agreed upon guidelines," and I responded with the other guidelines, you say you don't agree with the other guidelines in that context. So what you actually meant was, "It's ambiguous, period"? Prince of Canada t | c 20:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I was too succinct. The full intended meaning behind that statement was that the only way your interpretation of Mayalld's #4 could possibly be unambiguous was if the other agreed upon guidelines were ignored (and your original post didn't make any mention of them). That was, though, formulated in a mind that had forgotten its perception of a possible weakness in #4, and believed it to be a sound point. However, that weakness has since made itself evident again. --G2bambino (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Except, um, no? Bringing in the context of the other guidelines further proves the complete absence of ambiguity in the statement, even though the statement is unambiguous in itself. Prince of Canada t | c 21:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, only by your reading of it. --G2bambino (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
...Riiiiiiiiiiight. Well, I've asked Mayalld to drop by and clarify before his honeymoon. Prince of Canada t | c 21:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it is right. Please don't be sarcastic, as though what I'm saying is the ranting of a loopy moron. --G2bambino (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Sarcastic, yes. Other than that, kindly do not put words in my mouth or ascribe motivations to me that are not true. Ok? Good. Prince of Canada t | c 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Settle down. --G2bambino (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, don't patronize me. Ok? Good. Prince of Canada t | c 22:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Shall I restart the list in my sandbox and add this to it? Don't disappoint me, Prince. You can do better than this churlishness. --G2bambino (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Asking you not to patronize me or put words in my mouth is a bad thing now? Huh. Prince of Canada t | c 22:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[De-indent] No. But, being sarcastic and flippant is. No more on that from me, though. This stuff is below both of us. --G2bambino (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys! Please, chill!
It looks like the dispute is about what things I wrote mean! So, if I was imprecise, I accept the blame.
When I drafted up the guidelines, I was thinking in terms of sections, rather than the article as a whole, and envisaged right aligned images starting each section.
As things stand, with a lack of agreement on image spanning, it may actually make more sense, in some cases, to start with a left aligned image, but only where starting a section with a right aligned image is in some way problematic (that is a subjective thing, and in the eye of the beholder).
G2, please remember that these are suggested guidelines, not bulletproof rules that we can analyse to an extraordinary degree.
Mayalld (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Left-aligned images at start of sections are deprecated by MOS. Can you just, to settle the dispute, clarify explicitly that when you said "Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned," you intended it to read as "Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image in a section should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned."? Thanks again for all your hard work. Prince of Canada t | c 06:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I did indeed. The only caveat that I would place on that is that it doesn't work as well if we have image spanning. Mayalld (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Congratulations on the wedding, and please enjoy your honeymoon! :) Prince of Canada t | c 06:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, with that cleared up (thank you Mayalld), my disagreement with that particular suggestion is cemented. Left-aligned images being the first in a section (as long as their placement adheres to the clear guidelines of MoS) is not deprecated by WP:MOS. Nor is it made so by WP:ACCESS. Prince, we have made some agreements (no extraneous images, no images directly across from each other, no image stacking, etc.), but you have explicitly stated that you are opposed to all left-aligned images, as well as to images and infoboxes spanning section divisions. I maintain that these are opinions unique to you, and, as such, to have them "enforced" (so to speak) as editing guidelines necessitates a consensus. Do you disagree with that? --G2bambino (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I do indeed disagree with what you have said. The thing is, G2, if you're going to allude to things I've said, I would request that you do so accurately. Yes, I am opposed to all left-aligned images, however as I have stated, I realize that will never happen. Further, I am opposed to all left-aligned images spanning sections due to formatting issues with subsequent sections, and I am only opposed to right-aligned images doing so when it causes issues with formatting in the next section(s). Do stop misrepresenting what I say, will you? Clearly this needs to go to MedCab again. Prince of Canada t | c 18:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Asking for your confirmation was me trying to achieve accuracy; thank you for helping. The other thing I was looking for your agreement (or disagreement) on was whether or not you think you should seek a consensus in order to make a new guideline that stipulates neither images nor infoboxes shall span a section line (there can be no exceptions for right-aligned images, surely, as "causes issues with formatting" is too vague and dependent on the differences between personal opinions). --G2bambino (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that you insist, over and over and over and over, on me repeating things that I have already explained to you at great length? As I have already explained, repeatedly, I am only concerned with right-aligned images spanning into following sections when they interfere with the correct formatting of images in those sections. Therefore, of course there are exceptions; namely, when there aren't any images in the following section(s). Given that at no point did I say that "neither images nor infoboxes shall span a section line," I would ask you, for the last time, to stop misrepresenting my words. I suggest that you look up the definition of 'strawman' as a logical fallacy for why I object to it.
Mayalld based every single one of his recommendations on MOS and common sense. Every single one. He showed specific citations supporting why he made his decisions, which I happen to agree with. I suggest that you re-read them, and stop bothering me with these repetitive questions. I have made my position crystal clear; I (and Jao and Mayalld) have shown you the relevant portions of MOS and other policies (such as WP:ACCESS) that support what we are saying. Notice also that DoubleBlue, who is obviously active when it comes to image cleanup, also agreed with what I was doing.
Moving on to "well it doesn't say no!": It would be fundamentally impossible for WP policies to outline every single situation or action that you may not take, not to mention beyond ridiculous. Instead, most WP policies--especially those regarding style and layout--offer up the preferred/best solution without digressing into potentially infinite permutations of what is not permissible.
To reduce things to their absolute bases: you are trying to force formatting so it looks perfect on your screen, which is a resolution used by less than 16% of internet users. I am attempting to ensure that formatting is generally the same across all computers, with optimization aimed at 1024*768 resolution, as provided by the relevant sections of the MOS. Or do you deny that MOS says that display should be optimized for 1024*768? Prince of Canada t | c 18:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
[De-indent] I am trying to reduce the argument to its essence, which now leaves us with but two key points: 1) whether or not the first image in a section must be right-aligned; and 2) whether or not any image or infobox may span a section divider. These points remain because the MoS is not clear on these matters; in fact, Mayalld explicitly says so above. However, unless it can be proved otherwise, you are alone in your objections to the way this article was, and alone with your claims about making things right on every computer, and how to do so. This article (and others) sat completely undisturbed in regards to left- and right-alignment of images and images crossing section headers until you raised your objections. In other words, this remains a matter of your personal opinion. This is not to say that your objections are invalid, and we (you, me, and Mayalld) have worked to accommodate some of them. But, we're now into the realms of policy and guidelines, meaning decisions here will set a precedent that will carry on to other articles indefinitely. Mayalld suggested this go to WT:MOS to find a consensus, and I agree with him on that point. The question is: do you? --G2bambino (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
1)As I have explained repeatedly, yes it should, per the policies I have already linked to. 2) At what point did I say it can't? I said only that left-aligned images should not due to formatting concerns in subsequent sections, ditto for right-aligned images when subsequent sections contain images, and therefore can cause image stack, which is absolutely and explicitly deprecated. As for 'personal opinion', so is your opinion against whitespace, so stop devaluing my position. I have never raised any objection about going to WT:MOS. By all means go post there; I am busy at a conference for much of the remainder of the afternoon and probably into the evening. The correct way to take this to WT:MOS is to post, verbatim and without any refactoring or comment, Mayalld's principles 1-5 and guidelines 1-9 (10-12 are standard WP practice and need no further comment), and ask for comment on them. That means there will be a neutral post, created by a neutral party. Yes or no? Prince of Canada t | c 19:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
As the person seeking a change to the status-quo, the onus is on you to gain the consensus for change. You may pursue that in whatever manner you wish. If, however, I restore the status-quo (albeit, with Mayalld's agreed upon recommendations incorporated), will you leave it be until you've gained the consensus you need? --G2bambino (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Back earlier than expected. No, I will not. You yourself have said that there isn't agreement on those changes. If I'm not allowed to change it, neither are you. Seems pretty obvious to me. Prince of Canada t | c 20:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Then I will restore it to before any of this ever happened, if that's how you'd prefer it. See you at WT:MOS, then. --G2bambino (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
No, leave it as it is right now. Prince of Canada t | c 20:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that can't be done. The way the article is now is the way you desire it, which means you've contravened the last established consensus on image layout here. I'm sorry you don't want any of the recommendations we agreed upon at MedCab implemented, but I'm not going to risk an edit war over anything, and, as silence implies consensus, the images should return to their pre-September 8 positions until you gain a new consensus to make alterations. I certainly hope you're not threatening to revert if the old consensus is re-established here. --G2bambino (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
It can't? Keeping the current version was perfectly fine with you, pending outcome of discussion, until right now. One wonders why. Also, stop, for the last time, putting words in my mouth. I didn't at any point say I didn't want any of the recommendations implemented and your misrepresentation is an egregious violation of, well, just about every policy regarding interaction that there is. The way the article is now is the way that Mayalld last edited it, which, again, you were perfectly fine with until now; indeed, you made the reversion to that state! Leave it alone until the discussion is resolved at WT:MOS. As for your implication that I threatened something? Even more violations of policy. I never said or implied that I would do so, therefore stop attributing things to me that I have not said or done. Prince of Canada t | c 21:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
And just in case you forgot, this is the diff where you reverted all edits, with the edit summary '(undoing all of today's edits (save for Mayalld's); conflict is ongoing)'. Conflict is still ongoing, therefore no further changes. Prince of Canada t | c 21:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
[De-indent] No, it can't. This whole exercise has been an attempt to find some common ground between you and I in terms of image layout; this has all been exactly as WP:CON and WP:BRD guides us to do. Changes were made to the article in attempts to reach a satisfactory end, and they've sat while things were being discussed because edit warring is discouraged. But, it seems we've hit an impasse on the two points I highlighted earlier. Now, per WP:BRD, the original consensus remains until a new one is formed. I offered to restore the still standing consensus on images with alterations that conformed to what we agreed on at MedCab, but you responded by saying that you would not leave such a reversion alone. You now seem to be saying you won't leave any restoration of the consensus alone. If this is an incorrect reading of your responses, then you'd best be very clear on what your actual actions will be. --G2bambino (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Ummm.. so the continuation of the discussion at WT:MOS is what, exactly? If the article should sit while we are discussing here, why should it not sit while the exact same discussion is continued over there?
I offered to restore the still standing consensus on images with alterations that conformed to what we agreed on at MedCab, but you responded by saying that you would not leave such a reversion alone.
Since, according to you, we are not clear on what has been agreed to, I'm not sure how you could possibly do that. I resent your misrepresentation of my position. Stop it. Prince of Canada t | c 21:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Your discussion at WT:MOS is obviously your attempt to achieve a new consensus on image placement at this article (which, if successful, would become a precedent for future guidance). What's in the article now has sat because we were using the article as a testing ground for our individual interpretations of the MedCab outcome and (I, at least) then left it as I didn't want there to be any perception of an edit war or a 3RR breach. I still contest the edits you've made. Thus, there is no reason at all for the article to remain as it is now: the guidelines are clear on what should remain, and it is not the disputed changes. You know full well that we did agree on more of the MedCab recommendations than those we disagreed on, and I suspected you'd have faith in my ability to know which of those was which. You, however, said you would not let those changes alone. I can restore the original layout and then carefully make changes, being absolutely clear on what recommendations we agreed on, and how the change adheres to that. Does that sound like a plan? --G2bambino (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it does not sound like a plan. You were fine with the page remaining as-is while the discussion was ongoing. The discussion is still ongoing. Prince of Canada t | c 21:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, then, I will restore the consensus as it was before September 8, as is supported by WP:BRD, and leave it at that. --G2bambino (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
No. Again: the discussion is ongoing. You reverted changes while 'conflict is ongoing'. It is ongoing. So why are you so suddenly changing your tune? Prince of Canada t | c 22:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, reverting back to the original consensus is a definite change of tune from reverting back to previous tries at a solution. Regardless of the fact that such a move is supported by WP guidelines, if what the article looks like now didn't matter, there would be no dispute about undoing it. --G2bambino (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try this a different way. Please observe:
1) You reverted all changes while "conflict [was] ongoing", yes or no?
2) "Conflict is ongoing", yes or no?
Since there has been no change in the conditions under which you made the initial reverts, there is no need to make further changes. Until the conflict is resolved, of course. Prince of Canada t | c 22:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
[De-indent] As there is no change in the conditions under which I made the initial revert there is no reason not to make further reverts. In fact, I have every reason to do so, unless you can find something to contradict WP:BRD. --G2bambino (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
How about your desire to not be a hypocrite? Did you or did you not say that you made the reverts while the conflict is ongoing? Is the conflict ongoing or is it not? Therefore, what reason is there to change the page now? Your original reason for reverting the page to that state remains in force. Prince of Canada t | c 22:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no hypocricy in making the same change under the same conditions. Those are my last words here on this particular matter, as the argument is actually pointless. I am following policy, period. --G2bambino (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually there is. You said: "Because of situation X, the page state should be Y." The situation is still the same, ergo the page state should be the same. WP:BRD doesn't say what you think it says, you're not following policy, you are indeed actually just being very very WP:POINTy about this. Of course, it's abundantly clear that policy only applies to you when you decide it does; you require people to bring changes to the talk page before making them, but you don't do the same yourself. I would ask that just this one time, you realize that policy applies to you all the time. Prince of Canada t | c 22:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how long before G2 starts a major argument with Mayalld? --Lawe (talk) 07:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that such speculation is probably a poor idea. Prince of Canada t | c 07:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as Mayalld has now clarified, let's go back to the beginning. To wit:

No, per 9 it should be at the beginning of the section, right-aligned, as no infobox can encroach. I'm on 1024x768 resolution, which is what layout should be optomized for.
  • Image:Ottawa-1939.jpg: Per 10, this image should be left-aligned, and, per 1 and 10, at the start of the second paragraph of the section.
As above, but since there is absolutely no chance of it spanning into the next section, I'm willing to leave it.
  • Image:Roy-fam-2007.jpg: Per 10, this image should be left-aligned, and, per 1 and 10, at the start of the second paragraph of the section.
No, per 9 it should be at the beginning of the section, right-aligned, as no infobox can encroach. I'm on 1024x768 resolution, which is what layout should be optomized for.

I trust that is now clear. Prince of Canada t | c 15:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography/References/Footnotes

A couple issues with this section:

  • Many refs are duplicated between the Biblio & Refs. This seems redundant to me; I suggest we remove duplicates from the Biblio
  • Many of the footnotes in the Refs section aren't references, as such; I propose we move them to a 'notes' section. Relatively simple to define ref groups, and anything in the footnotes which needs to be cited (I see a couple) can have their own cites to the refs section.

Yes/no? Prince of Canada t | c 05:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The citations, in general, need a good cleanup, which was something on my list of things to do. But there is no "References" section, only "Notes". --G2bambino (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh my good God. You know exactly what I mean. Prince of Canada t | c 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I do? Well, as God, I suppose I should have known what you mean. Seriously, though, nobody can read your mind, and guessing can cause a lot more problems than would trying to be clear. --G2bambino (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was absolutely crystal bloody clear from what I wrote, your pedantry notwithstanding. Do you or do you not agree with my proposal, yes or no? Prince of Canada t | c 18:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
If you say so. I'm reserving further comment until other issues are sorted out. --G2bambino (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with any other issues. Allow me to rephrase to satisfy your pedantry: I am proposing that the current section in which the {{reflist}} resides be reformatted into two sections: 1) Notes, 2) References. I propose that the Notes section contain those refs currently in the article which are more of a 'footnote' (as in, explaining in-text statements further), and the References section contain those refs currently in the article which are citations. I further propose that all items which are duplicated between the (current) {{reflist}} and the (current) bibliography be removed from the latter as redundant.
Is that clear enough for you? So do you agree, yes or no? Prince of Canada t | c 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of images

I have undone all changes to images in this article since the version of 05:14, 8 September 2008. This restores the consensus established by silence, and adheres to point two of the BRD process, which directs us to, again, discuss any changes to the article that are not supported by another editor. --G2bambino (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In the process ignoring the consensus you and I had reached regarding the state of the article while the conflict/discussion is ongoing. Reverting back; you have one revert left. Prince of Canada t | c 23:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
There was no consensus: I did not agree with those edits. --G2bambino (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
There was indeed a consensus. You made a bunch of changes to the page, while the conflict was occurring, and I did not contest it. This is not a consensus how, precisely? Prince of Canada t | c 23:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Because not all parties were content with the result. --G2bambino (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
So, let me see if I've got this right. You make an edit to the page 'while conflict is ongoing', yes? Conflict is still ongoing, yes? And now you suddenly decide that state of the page is not okay, yes? Huh. Prince of Canada t | c 23:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Almost; the dislike of the result was not sudden. --G2bambino (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The point remains: we had consensus. You made an edit which neither I nor anybody else contested. That is consensus, no? Prince of Canada t | c 00:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
No. --G2bambino (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain how an edit that you made and to which nobody objected is not consensus? Prince of Canada t | c 00:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Because that edit did not resolve the larger problem. --G2bambino (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Could you please show me where at WP:CONSENSUS it says that it doesn't count when you say so? Resolution of the problem is not the point; the fact that the edit was consensus is. Clearly it was good enough for you while the discussion was occurring here. One wonders why, as soon as the discussion ranges farther afield, it very suddenly isn't good enough. Prince of Canada t | c 01:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
[De-indent] There is nowhere at WP:CON that says it does count when you say so. What it says it that consensus has been achieved when everyone agrees that it has; as consensus is sought in order to resolve a problem, resolving the problem is the point. If you honestly believe there was silence, and I consented to that version I reverted to, why do you think I stayed on to argue about the matter for another three days? Just for shits and giggles? Please. --G2bambino (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
But, see, you made that edit to stand until the conflict was resolved. I didn't dispute it. Ergo, we had consensus on that edit. This is basic logic. Prince of Canada t | c 01:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
That is what you imagine logic to be. You are attributing to me motives I never had, things I never said, and deciding for me what I thought, even while the evidence in front of your face proves you wrong, and you remain in denial of what I am telling you about my own feelings. Without unanimous agreement there is no consensus: "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner." The very obvious fact that argument continued after I made that revert shows, without one shred of doubt, that there was no consensus on the article as it stood at that time, and now stands again. --G2bambino (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let me try one more time in really simple language. You made an edit. Nobody objected. Therefore consensus, temporary or not. I'm not psychic; I can't look at that edit and know that you only meant for it to stand until you decided otherwise. Further, 'consensus' and 'unanimous' are not the same thing; you know that. There was, indeed, no consensus on how the article stood up until the time that you clicked the revert button. After that, neither of us objected to the article as it stood, while we engaged in discussion. Again, that's consensus by implication. No matter how much you say it isn't, the facts don't change, sorry. Prince of Canada t | c 02:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to be psychic. "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved"; no agreement = no consensus. I made my displeasure with the layout of the article, after the revert, abundently clear on this very talk page, as well as in multiple other locations; objection = no agreement. Deny these truths if you will, but the evidence stands to prove me correct. --G2bambino (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
If you say so, G2. Once again, policies only apply to other people, not you. Ever going to respond to your violation of point 2 of WP:BRD? Prince of Canada t | c 02:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies apply to me, not yours. I therefore can't respond to something that doesn't exist. --G2bambino (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you both should desist. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Prince, as you have never rescinded your demand that I not post on your talk page, I have no choice but to notify you here that a discussion has been started at WP:ANI regarding an issue in which you have been involved. --G2bambino (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Requiring that you not post lies, attacks, and abuse on my talk page is a 'demand' now? I see. Prince of Canada t | c 23:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
No. Stating, and I quote: "You are not welcome at this page. Go elsewhere," is a demand. --G2bambino (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys calm down!!!Please be civil. It's just WIkipedia! Thanks, Genius101 T. C. 20:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I recommend this article be reverted to its status before the G2bambino/PrinceOfCanada dispute occured. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
PrinceOfCanada a co-operative editor, subject to patterned verbal baiting and gaming. His responses above are nothing more than a human desire to be not subjected to stress. These are defensive, not offensive. The wording of many articles now seems to be a question of who has the most time and energy to spend in edit-wars. It is very frustrating to see others sit on the fence and let this happen, when they should be putting their weight behind the best/better version of the article. --Lawe (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It's obviously very frustrating for you when you don't get your way without challenge. Perhaps the stress and defensiveness wouldn't emerge if that fundamental feeling of entitlement were dissolved. Just a thought. --G2bambino (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you just broke my irony meter. Prince of Canada t | c 18:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Typical. --G2bambino (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Step 1 - clean the slate

After giving this some thought, it seems prudent to take each step towards a solution to this matter slowly, to spell everything out clearly, and to have agreement on one before moving to the next.

Step one would be restoring the last standing consensus; cleaning the slate, so to speak, and starting again. The last consensus was that which was established by silence, and stood until September 8. This will:

  • make the article neutral in terms of image placement; it does not restore a version preferred by either party involved,
  • allow us to then move to the next step of clarifying what guidelines for image placement are agreed on by both parties involved.

There should be agreement on this move before it is made.

  • Honestly, just a comment since I haven't the desire to examine all the changes that have taken place in the last several weeks. My comment is just that the current version is quite acceptable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Which September 8 version are you speaking of? Though it seems moot since the other party in the dispute strongly opposes this method of resolving the conflict. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I neglected to mention that here. I was more specific above. --G2bambino (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have followed this dispute from a distance for a few days and am bewildered by it. Why is the placement of images so contentious on this article when it is rarely, if ever, a problem on the other two million articles on Wikipedia? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the article rested undisturbed in terms of images essentially since its creation. Why they've suddenly become a focus is a mystery to me too, but, alas, they have and it has to be dealt with. --G2bambino (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Short version: because G2bambino is attempting to force formatting so it works perfectly on his computer, which is explicitly forbidden by MOS. Indeed, MOS stipulates that formatting should be optimized for 1024*768 display, which he doesn't use. Add in a bunch of him not understanding how formatting actually works, and his general tendency to refuse to back down when wrong (note the severe wikilawyering above over 'the' versus 'a'), and it all becomes a bit clearer. Prince of Canada t | c 19:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly this is less about image placement and what's best for the article and more about personalities. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I might venture to say that it is ultimately about what's best for the article, but a personality - the personality that launched this whole affair by breaking earlier consensus - is getting in the way; this should be something that's easy to resolve, but it's been made incredibly difficult by behaviours I can't here openly comment on lest they be taken as some personal attack. I'm hoping, though, that we can get more parties involved in this and get things moving forward, ultimately to a restored stability. --G2bambino (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Dude, consensus changes. You yourself quoted WP:BRD. Consensus isn't what you say it is. Now, do I need to open another MedCab? Or will you actually discuss the matter without being belittling, dismissive, lying, misrepresenting what other people say, and generally without being the way you have been all along? Prince of Canada t | c 22:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This argument has already been dealt with above. --G2bambino (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
"Because I say so" != 'dealt with'. Prince of Canada t | c 22:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It's really not. I have done nothing since Day 1 of this but try to do what is best for the article in terms of readibility and accessibility. Prince of Canada t | c 19:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Both of you might both want to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema to get a sense of where this may be headed if you can't resolve these disagreements amicably or through mediation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The mediation--which, I should point out, G2bambino started--failed only because he refused to accept the proposal from the mediator. I accepted it with only minor reservations that were fully addressed. Prince of Canada t | c 22:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I certainly don't want to see it ending up in such a situation, but what, then, do you suggest, NY? Mediation has already been attempted, and, though it resolved a few issues, it ultimately failed due to both parties disagreeing on two specific points, points that remain, I believe, the main fuel for dispute here. I'm hoping this step-by-step process will find an eventual resolution. --G2bambino (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion is that the two of you both leave this issue for other editors to resolve. Fortunately, unlike other issues, it does not much affect the meaning or content of the article. I don't want to suggest that we are dealing with a WP:LAME candidate, but if this is your most serious concern about the content of the encyclopedia, then overall things must actually be in very good shape. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can't disagree with that. I wonder, though, that if the article isn't returned to it's last stable position, will one be able to move images now without an individual enforcing his personal interpretations of policy and unique preferences? --G2bambino (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Uh. *blink*. You do realize that was precisely what you were doing, yeah? Prince of Canada t | c 22:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you now admitting that it is what you are doing? --G2bambino (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as I'm not a fan of lying? No, of course not. Your 'unique preferences' have been specifically shown to be low-priority at WP:MOS, WP:ACCESS, WP:PIC, etc. You have been proven wrong on multiple points time and time and time again. One wonders what WP:POINT you're trying to make. Prince of Canada t | c 22:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
*Sigh* Something being deemed as low priority is not proof of uniqueness. I admit to having been wrong on a number of things, and I have since tried to correct myself. There is still, however and unfortunately, some gaps and vagueries in the MOS. Where this dispute emerges is from a collision of those MOS deficiencies with your adamant belief that your interpretations of the vagueries and filler for the gaps is absolutely correct, beliefs that, ironically or not, support your preferred layout and unique objections. You now won't even allow an easy restoration of the consensus (even going so far as to dispute what that consensus was) so that we can try and get each image placed, one by one, in a manner acceptable to all. Can I ask you one more time to be open to perhaps being wrong (or, at least, not automatically right) and cooperative? --G2bambino (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I won't allow restoration of what you falsely call 'consensus' because 1) that 'consensus' clearly and uncontrovertibly breaks MOS rules; 2) because a newer consensus emerged the moment that you edited the page 'while the conflict is ongoing' and nobody objected to it; 3) because you are ignoring WP:BRD, especially point #2. You decided to quote WP:BRD to support your position, therefore you have to live with the fact that you are wrong per the precise policy you quoted. I have been cooperative:
  • I attempted to discuss this with you when the initial issue--image bunching--arose. You were belittling, dismissive, and kept ignoring extremely plain-English explanations of what I was doing
  • I engaged in the MedCab case that you started, was cooperative throughout. That is, until you decided that the case was a failure because you didn't get the answer you wanted. You really have never addressed why you would ask for a neutral third party to intervene, and then refuse to abide by their suggestions. The only conceivable answer is that you wanted a specific response, and you didn't get it.
  • I have further tried to be cooperative here, but it is frankly impossible to do so with you. Your incessant wikilawyering (again, your utterly ridiculous bit about 'the' versus 'a', when you were completely and utterly wrong, as proven by Mayalld's clarification) and gaming makes it impossible to actually engage in any discussion with you. I'm not the only one who has noticed this. I would suggest you revisit Talk:Autumn Phillips, Talk:Monarchy of Australia, Talk:Republicanism in Australia, Talk:Commonwealth realm for just a few of your more recent examples of gaming, wikilawyering, condescension, patronizing attitude, and in the case of Talk:Autumn Phillips further refusal to accept what completely neutral and uninvolved experts have to say. Again, one has to wonder why, when experts that you yourself asked for comment are ignored by you, what the point of trying to engage you in discussion is? You claim that I am not being cooperative? You claim that I am not open to being wrong or "not automatically right"? You won't even listen to experts.
The fundamental issue is that you refuse to accept that other people can possibly be right. You refuse to accept when people explain, patiently, why you are wrong. Instead, you game, you wikilawyer, you ignore what they say, you misrepresent what they say, and you outright lie about what they have said. 'Cooperation' doesn't mean 'doing what G2bambino says.' I have cooperated. I have tried to deal with this dispute in good faith. You haven't. You have continually belittled me, insulted me, ignored what I had to say, and ignored what uninvolved and disinterested third parties have had to say. The only possible conclusion to be drawn from that is that you will only accept one answer--your way or the highway, and damn the experts who say otherwise. I would further add that you yourself characterized this whole issue as 'lame'. If it's so lame, why are you pursuing it? Oh right, you claim there are 'other issues'. These 'other issues' are on your side; they boil down to you being upset at your eventual realization that I was absolutely correct in my explanations of what {{fixbunching}} did and absolutely correct in using it, and you expended a lot of hot air in belittling me--and insulting me, what with your accusations of 'vandalism' and a 'screw you attitude'--before you finally understood how it actually worked. ETA: I notice that you your statement "Step by step you've been nothing but an obstruction." Could that possibly be because you realize that it's a) a complete fabrication, and b) entirely applicable to you?
I would also note that there have been absolutely no disputes about any other image moves I have made in any other articles. Not one. And given that on WP silence=consent, one has to realize that this is really much more about your personal peccadilloes, your sense of ownership, and your inability to comprehend that anyone can have a different opinion on anything and be equally or more right about it than you do.
And finally, I would further note that the only reason you are unblocked is because I am. Now, a large part of why I requested to be unblocked was based on the presumption that your threat to resign from the project was actually true. Seeing as it's not, I would have absolutely no difficulty in asking that we both be reblocked. Perhaps it would give you time to meditate on your projection. I should point out, by the way, that if with your long history of blocks and warnings you don't yet understand what WP:EW is, you never will. Indeed, even with the restrictive conditions that Tiptoety imposed upon you, s/he noted at ANI that s/he doesn't think they'll be effective with you. Honestly.. have you looked at the number of people who say the same things about your behaviour? Doesn't that even come close to making you question how you act? Prince of Canada t | c 23:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so the answer is "no". --G2bambino (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ignoring everything I have said, again. Why do you do this? Prince of Canada t | c 00:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Step 1 fails

It don't look like this article's gonna be reverted back to Sept 8th version, anytime soon. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that the version G2 wants explicitly breaks MOS/ACCESS with regards to no left-aligned images directly under headings, no sandwiching of text between images, and images must always be placed in their correct sections? Of course it shouldn't. Prince of Canada t | c 23:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that version does have guideline breaches. But it is not my preferred version. Did you not read the proposal at the head of this section? --G2bambino (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that I have requested, more than once, that you not patronize me. Prince of Canada t | c 23:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You were not belittled. You are speaking as though you did not read my words at the top of this section. Ergo, the question is valid. Do you, or do you not, understand that restoring the last consensus would not be a return to my preferred version? --G2bambino (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Patronized is the word I used, and yes you were. Whether or not it's your preferred version is immaterial; a completely disinterested third party has said there is nothing wrong with the current version which, I point out again, is the version you implemented until the conflict is over. Is the conflict over? No? So there's no reason to make any changes until it is. Prince of Canada t | c 02:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
It was you who raised the claim that the pre-September 8 version was the one I "wanted"; a claim that was patently untrue. I also never once said that what sits there now should remain until the conflict is over; my exact words at that time were: "undoing all of today's edits (save for Mayalld's); conflict is ongoing." In other words, it became obvious that we hadn't found the resolution we thought we had, and had just made a bigger mess of things. So, I repeat: there was no indication from me that what's there now is some sort of satisfactory resolution, even temporarily; it is just some arbitrary endpoint that remains only because of your defense of it, not mine. --G2bambino (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Is the conflict ongoing? Why yes it is. So the page should change because...? Especially since someone who is completely uninterested in the dispute says that the current version is fine? Are you going to address that? Prince of Canada t | c 03:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Because it restores neutrality. The page should remain because...? --G2bambino (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Because a completely uninterested third party says it looks fine. As did an admin (who, agreed, overstepped his bounds in saying so). Because this version is the new consensus. You made the revert to this version because the conflict was ongoing. Given that it hasn't stopped, and nobody--except for you--objected to it, that becomes a) the new consensus, and b) shouldn't be changed because the issue is ongoing. Because per WP:BRD, you were bold, I reverted, we're now in 'discuss' mode. Because also per WP:BRD, you shouldn't have reverted my reversion in the first place. Because, pardon my french, leaving it as-is ends this fucking stupid debate, whereas moving back to that version ensures it starts over, from scratch, with fresh new opportunities for you to make ridiculous wikilawyer arguments over 'the' vs. 'a'. Want to open a new MedCab that you'll ignore when you don't get the answer you want? Be my guest. But no, this version of the article should not be reverted to the Sept 8 one. Prince of Canada t | c 03:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[De-indent] You've already tried this argument. There is no new consensus, the absence of which is explicitly proven by the fact that there is still an ongoing debate on the matter. This also means that leaving it as is will not end the problem; a) the article still looks terrible, and b) you'll take your unique quirks and interpretations to other articles. Trying to bully me into silence similarly will not be successful. The article will be changed, one way or the other. I felt it would be a good idea to start afresh and go through each image one by one. You, however, have made it clear that you will stand in the way of that attempt. Thus, edits will have to be made to the page from its current incarnation, within the established guidelines, of course. I hope that personal dislikes and quirks will not cause further disruption. --G2bambino (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God in heaven. That is precisely my point! There is ongoing discussion therefore the page should not be changed! The article looks perfectly fine at 1024*768, which is the resolution that layout should be optimized for. Or do you deny that MOS says that?
Why is it that my views are 'unique quirks and interpretations' while yours are not? Again I note that of the multitude of images I have moved across a multitude of articles, you are the only one who has objected.
I am not trying to 'bully' you into silence--and really, that kind of accusation is unbelievably rich coming from you.
I note that you (unsurprisingly) completely ignored WP:BRD. Are we or are we not in the discussion phase of BRD?
You also (unsurprisingly) ignored the fact that a neutral third party says the page looks fine. Are you actually going to address that, or continue ignoring it? Prince of Canada t | c 03:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I know the point you are trying to make, but that does not mean the point must be accepted as well founded. You still operate under the belief that there was a consensus for the article as it is, and that belief is purely false. The last consensus that did exist was one broken by you, alone. That's not to say that you aren't allowed to do so, and that there were not problems with the old layout, but there never was, and still is not, full agreement for all of the changes you made. Where there is disagreement is around your unique interpretations of vague WP guidelines (i.e. the first image in a section must be right-aligned) or completely fabricated new ones (i.e. no headers wrapping around left-aligned images), and, specifically, your (albeit random) enforcement of them as though they were set in stone and unarguable. You came here to impose these rules, that imposition was challenged, and it remains your obligation to gain the consensus needed to keep that imposition in place. --G2bambino (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's try again: a completely neutral third party is of the opinion that the page looks fine. This is someone who is obviously active in image issues, as evidenced by his reaction to the image cleanup tag you placed on the article. Please respond to that.
WP:BRD, again: are we or are we not in the discussion phase? Please respond to that. Prince of Canada t | c 04:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
These points need not be addressed: one is irrelevant, the other is based on a fallacy. The only thing that's important here is your realisation of the necessity of consensus in order to impose your take on vague guidelines and unique new ones, at this article, or anywhere else. --G2bambino (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
"Because I say so" isn't actually a reason, G2; you were bold, I reverted, we are now discussing.
As for the other... So you're saying that DoubleBlue's opinion is irrelevant because a) you don't agree with him, or b) you are now saying you didn't agree to "Where the two parties are unable to agree on the layout of a particular section, they should both disengage, and invite other editors to decide"? Prince of Canada t | c 04:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Not pertinent. You need consensus to impose your unique rules. --G2bambino (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
If that's not pertinent, then why are you arguing that any other of the guidelines you agreed to are pertinent? I'd also point you at WP:DR, which explicitly suggests asking for a third opinion. I see a third opinion on the current state of the article, and I don't see anyone usually involved with the article weighing down on one side or the other. One way or the other, a neutral third opinion was provided, it is pertinent (whichever avenue you care to take, whether it's WP:DR or Mayalld's guidelines), and you haven't explained why other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Prince of Canada t | c 04:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[De-indent] I'm no longer arguing. All that matters is what happens from now on; the article is not on lock-down and anyone may move an image if they wish. There are already established guidelines for image placement, but you need consensus to impose your unique ones. This is an overriding policy that applies to everyone. --G2bambino (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you're explicitly saying that you will not abide by the guidelines you agreed to? Prince of Canada t | c 04:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
As I never said any such thing, the question isn't relevant. --G2bambino (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but you are explicitly saying that you will not abide by the guideline you agreed on, namely: "Where the two parties are unable to agree on the layout of a particular section, they should both disengage, and invite other editors to decide" ? Prince of Canada t | c 05:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I never agreed to that guideline, and it doesn't really matter anyway, as we're both under a 1RR restriction. What I am explicitly saying is that you will need consensus to impose your unique policies. --G2bambino (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, looking at your summary here, you didn't say you disagreed with it, and you were extremely specific about what you disagreed with, so any reasonable person can easily infer that you agreed with everything else. But WP:DR explicitly suggests a neutral third opinion in order to end a dispute. Do you deny that? Do you deny that a neutral third opinion was provided? Given that you cannot possibly deny either of those things, why are you ignoring the neutral third opinion? Prince of Canada t | c 05:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Not disagreeing with something is not an automatic agreement; I said the guideline was unclear. The third opinion offered here has nothing to do with the enforcement of your unique policies. --G2bambino (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Leaving aside your continued characterization of my position, please answer the following: Are we having a dispute about the layout of the page, yes or no? WP:DR explicitly suggests a third opinion in settling disputes, yes or no? A third opinion has been provided, yes or no? Prince of Canada t | c 05:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Not relevant. The disagreement is over the imposition of unique policies and interpretations of existing policy. --G2bambino (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No, the disagreement is over interpretations of extant policies, period. I have shown time and time and time again that everything I am saying has basis in MOS, ACCESS, etc. So again, are we having a dispute about the layout of the page, yes or no? WP:DR explicitly suggests a third opinion in settling disputes, yes or no? A third opinion has been provided, yes or no? Prince of Canada t | c 05:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[De-indent] No headers should wrap around left-aligned images is not a guideline. The claim that the first image in a section must be right-aligned is under dispute at WT:MOS. These matters affect the layout of the page. You need consensus on both matters before imposing them here. --G2bambino (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, left-aligned images splitting text away from headers is precisely why left-aligned images are specifically deprecated under a section header. The same issue can occur with left-aligned images spanning into the next section, as well as it being--as I have already explained, at great length--more difficult to read. But what we are discussing here is the layout of this page. So what, precisely, do you object to about the image layout as it currently stands? That means: what, precisely about the image layout as it is now is contravening MOS? Anything? Prince of Canada t | c 06:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but nobody is, as far as I know, proposing to have left-aligned images anywhere but one paragraph under a section header. I suppose there is the very odd chance that an image that's placed thusly could be just big enough, in a section that's just short enough, on a screen that's just the right size and just the right resolution, to have it's bottom edge land right where the next section's header is, shearing it over leftwards from the following text. But, what are the chances of that? And there's no guideline regarding where the bottom of an image should plop; only where its code (in html) and thus its top (in paper space) should be. So, though it might occasionally result in some unattractive layout, it isn't against any rules. Could it be avoided by saying: no left-aligned images in short sections (say, three paragraphs or less)?
The layout issues in this article will come. We first have to be clear on what's acceptable and what's not before anyone makes a move that the other will immediately disagree with. --G2bambino (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't ask you to make any edits; I asked you a very specific question about your specific problems with the layout in terms of MOS contravention. Please answer that and I will be happy to answer your question. Prince of Canada t | c 22:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Nor am I looking for any request from you before I edit. What I am seeking is agreement on what is acceptable when the guidelines won't guide us. There is, thus, no sense in your question. MOS breaches are easy to deal with (if there were any); it's the unilateral implementation of unique policies and interpretations of existent guidelines that has been the problem, and still has the potential to continue being one. --G2bambino (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
So you're agreeing that there are no MOS breaches? Okay. Given that, and given that a neutral and uninvolved third party (who is, as I have mentioned, obviously involved in image cleanup issues), what need is there to move anything? You yourself always say that large changes need to be covered at the talk page first. So, please justify why any changes need to be made to the article as it stands. Prince of Canada t | c 22:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't agree to that; I was explicitly vague because it doesn't yet matter. I've also never said there would be large scale changes, and I do not need to justify any moves I do make that are within the established guidelines. Where I percieve a potential problem is if you start to unilaterally implement your unique policies and interpretations of existent guidelines should I "breach" them. --G2bambino (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, then: other people need to justify changes first, but you don't? Again, a neutral third party has said the current layout is fine. What are your specific objections? Prince of Canada t | c 23:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[De-indent] No. To clarify: everyone needs to justify the creation and implementation of new rules. --G2bambino (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And again: what are your specific objections to the current layout? Prince of Canada t | c 23:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
We'll see once Sandy's done with her editing. --G2bambino (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
In other words, saved by the bell so you don't have to answer. Fascinating how you refuse to answer questions. Prince of Canada t | c 23:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
If you say so, PoC. If you say so. --G2bambino (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I do, yes. I asked you a very simple and direct question, aimed at finding out what your issues were so that they could be resolved. Your refusal to answer is perplexing, to say the least. Prince of Canada t | c 23:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop that

PoC & G2, why are ya's using this discussion, to kowabonga each other? GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As DoubleBlue aluded to, personalities are a factor in this dispute. Unfortunately, one can't bring up these issues without being attacked and insulted as an attacker and insulter. It's getting beyond ridiculous. --G2bambino (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, G2, you're right. My personality is the only factor here. Your wikilawyering, gaming, attackes, patronizing, belittling, ignoring what you have been told, misrepresentation of what I have said, outright lies about what I have said.. none of these have anything to do with it. My bad. Prince of Canada t | c 02:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
You see what I'm talking about, GD? --G2bambino (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
If you say so, G2. If you say so. Prince of Canada t | c 03:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you both be content, in allowing the full (12) membership of Wikipedia: WikiProject Commonwealth trying to settle this (via majority opinon)? GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Not unless/until G2 can show what about the layout on this page contravenes MOS. Prince of Canada t | c 20:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
My experience of G2bambino is similar, and I agree with Price of Canada. I will add that sources are frequently misused. He highly approves and boastful of his own poor conduct, then makes excuses for it, then criticises the administrators for blocking him. This is not personal, but psychological. How many other wikipedians have we lost thanks to G2bambino? --Lawe (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
All I do is abide by the rules as best I can and try to interperet sources likewise. If that gets in some people's way, well, that's unfortunate. --G2bambino (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

BRD

What part of "please discuss changes at talk page per WP:BRD" is unclear, G2bambino? Prince of Canada t | c 04:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be perfectly clear, WP:BRD states that the process is:

  1. Boldly make the desired change to the page.
  2. Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT revert this change!
  3. If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit, and explain and discuss your reasoning with the reverter and consider their different views too (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change.

So..

  1. You made a bunch of changes
  2. I reverted them
  3. You reverted that... huh? That's not how the process works.

Please discuss your proposed changes here. Prince of Canada t | c 04:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, one more thing. You should self-revert your changes, as you should not have reverted my reversion in the first place, per the policy you quote so often. Prince of Canada t | c 04:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We've been in the discuss phase ever since you edited the last standing consensus on this article back on September 8, and I reverted it. If you've some problem with what's currently there now, please discuss. --G2bambino (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, you made a bold edit, I reverted, you should not have reverted it per WP:BRD. Please revert back to the version by SandyGeorgia and discuss the changes you wish to make. You require this of people who make large changes to articles, it is therefore required of you. Please discuss the changes you wish to make here. Prince of Canada t | c 04:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I referred to WP:BRD once on the matter of: the original consensus remains until a new one is formed. You opted not to return to the original consensus, and no new one was ever formed since the last was broken by you. Again, we're therefore still in the discuss phase, if you feel obligated to continue it, that is. --G2bambino (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
In which case you still shouldn't have made any changes, until the discussion is complete. Whichever way you arrive at it, the conclusion is the same: you should not have made any changes. Either I am correct, in which case point 2 of WP:BRD requires you to discuss and not revert, or you are correct, in which case no new consensus has yet emerged and you should not be making any changes until one is established. Therefore, please restore SandyGeorgia's version until discussion is concluded. I should point out that SandyGeorgia is one of the top people at WP:FAR, and is a) entirely neutral and uninvolved, b) something of an expert when it comes to page layout. WP:DR explicitly calls for uninvolved third opinions as a method of dispute resolution; SandyGeorgia provided that opinion by way of making edits. As far as I am concerned, the actions of two uninvolved editors should have ended this entire issue. So I am asking for the last time, please show cooperativeness and good faith by reverting to SandyGeorgia's last version, and discussing the changes you wish to implement here. Prince of Canada t | c 04:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but no. You are not in a position to decide who may edit the article and who may not, nor when those who can't may again do so. You were asked if you wanted to restore the last consensus and you explicitly declined that offer. By doing so, you also rejected the proposal to move the images in a step by step process. Since you broke the last consensus, two other editors besides us have made their changes to the images, all while the discussion was ongoing. So, there is nothing to limit me, or you, from doing so as well. Do as you please: edit the article, or discuss something here, if you feel either is necessary. --G2bambino (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not deciding anything, I am abiding by established policy and guidelines that you yourself often quote. I wish to be clear: you are stating that you will not discuss your changes, is that correct? Prince of Canada t | c 05:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It is precisely because you earlier and outright dismissed these guidelines that they do not now apply. You also cannot selectively pick who to apply them to (me) and who not to (SandyGeorgia and Denelson83). I'm not sure how much more clear I can be regarding discussion. --G2bambino (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
G2bambino, saying that I did something doesn't actually make it reality, I'm afraid. As for the other two (three, actually, including Mayalld editors, they're completely uninvolved, and know far more than either you or I about article layout, SandyGeorgia especially. I will take your behaviour to another venue, as it appears clear that you refuse to cooperate or act in good faith here. Prince of Canada t | c 05:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

[De-indent] Of course you're right, it doesn't. It's your words above that make it reality. One wonders why you're investing so much energy in denying what you said, as well as trying to selectively adhere to and/or interperet guidelines so as to control what some people do; you're free to edit the article and discuss whatever irks you about what I or others did, in terms of article content, that is. But, if you'd rather use your time otherwise, so be it; I only hope that this time around you'll keep things in the open. --G2bambino (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

100 kilobytes and growing

This article is ridiculously long. The recommended maximum is 30 kilobytes. Time to start prioritising. Much of this is repeated in other articles. There seems to be much that could be done to make the article a reasonable length. --Lawe (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting a headache (see discussion above). Sure, trim it down via creating sister articles. GoodDay (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is long, yes. But "ridiculously" is a bit of a dramatic exaggeration; regard: Canada (111kb), Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (99kb), United States (155kb), Monarchy of the United Kingdom (89kb), Germany (117kb), etc. That's not to say there couldn't be some pruning here; I've been giving just that task some thought recently. --G2bambino (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal union

The reworded version does not accord with the agreements at Talk:Commonwealth realm. Please include the lack of agreement on the term. In addition, please remove the WP:SYN from the Zines reference, please remove the English Court of Appeal reference, as 'personal union' is used nowhere in the text. [ roux ] [x] 15:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It would appear to me that the words "called or compared to" already implies a disagreement. --G2bambino (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The reworded version does not accord with the agreements at Talk:Commonwealth realm. "Called or compared to" implies that those are the only words used, and does not clearly show that the term is widely disputed. Please fix. [ roux ] [x] 15:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
"Widely disputed" has no basis in fact. I'm sure you will note my changes. --G2bambino (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You mean all those references that state 'personal union' isn't accurate are not factual? Huh. Interesting. And no, your changes are still not in accord with the agreements at Talk:Commonwealth realm. Let me refresh your memory:

Terms such as 'personal union,' a 'form of personal union,' and 'shared monarchy,' amongst others, have all been advanced as descriptions since the beginning of the Commonwealth itself to describe this relationship, though there has been no agreement on which term is most accurate.

Reworded one statement to fit the context. Please change to align with the agreements at Talk:Commonwealth realm. [ roux ] [x] 16:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
"All those"? Sure. State what wording you'd prefer. --G2bambino (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Already did. And there are, as you are fully aware, many more references which argue against personal union than argue for, and indeed those arguing against are far more recent. There's really no need to have this debate all over again, just abide by what you agreed to. Thanks. [ roux ] [x] 16:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Already did. What's here doesn't have to be an absolute mirror of what's at Commonwealth realm. --G2bambino (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No, you are (again) presenting 'personal union' as the best term, when there is in fact absolutely no agreement on it, and when many more sources dispute the use than argue for it. Please reword as I posted above, which is in complete agreement with what you agreed to at Talk:Commonwealth realm. Thanks. [ roux ] [x] 16:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Please outline how a relationship that has been called or compared to a personal union, though with little actual agreement on the most accurate description, and even dissenting opinion is different in essence to terms such as 'personal union,' a 'form of personal union,' and 'shared monarchy,' amongst others, have all been advanced as descriptions to describe this relationship, though there has been no agreement on which term is most accurate. --G2bambino (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) One has been agreed upon--by you--and one has not. It took how many weeks to arrive at that agreement? Please honour it. Thank you. [ roux ] [x] 16:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a difference in their essence; as I see it, there is no difference. --G2bambino (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Your version implies that some form of 'personal union' is the most accurate term. This is manifestly not the case. Please reword to align with the version that multiple users have agreed on. Thank you. [ roux ] [x] 16:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
People, whatever ya'll agreed to at talk: Commonwealth realm, apply it here word for word. PS- Ya'll should take a break from these monarchy articles (say 'bout a week). GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
What he said. [ roux ] [x] 16:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You implied that I had somehow manipulated my words to make them say something different to the essence of what was agreed on at Talk:Commonwealth realm. I asked you to be explicit instead of implicit. What, in my wording, implies that "some form of personal union" is the most accurate term? --G2bambino (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I implied no such thing. I said, explicitly, that the statement does not accord with the agreements at Talk:Commonwealth realm. "And even dissent" implies that 'personal union' is the correct term, even though some people disagree. As GoodDay said, please abide by what was agreed to at Talk:Commonwealth realm. [ roux ] [x] 18:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to repeat demands over an over; it appears bossy. It is exactly by saying that my statement does not accord with the agreement reached at Talk:Commonwealth realm that you imply I twisted my words in order to do so. Pointing out "even dissenting opinion" is the first time you've been explicit about what you percieve as being wrong. I've reworded it to remove those words, and make it more along the lines of the paragraph wording at Talk:Commonwealth realm, though I don't know what reference "shared monarchy" comes from, nor where "sui generis" is said in the Corbett cite. --G2bambino (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not a demand, it's a polite request that you conform to something you agreed to. And, sorry, the paragraph still doesn't do so. I have now changed it to reflect what was agreed upon at Talk:Commonwealth realm. [ roux ] [x] 19:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You still imply that I was not conforming to something that was agreed to. Could you, again, be specific? As for the present wording:
  • There are more than sixteen monarchies in the Commonwealth.
  • Use mention distinction is italicised, not surrounded by singular quotations.
  • There is still no citation(s) for "shared monarchy".
  • There is no citation for "there has been no agreement on which term is most accurate".
  • "...as descriptions since the beginning of the Commonwealth itself" is excess for the context, as you noted above.
--G2bambino (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(out)I'm not really sure how to be more specific than "a specific wording describing the use of 'personal union' was agreed on, and your version is not what was agreed on". [ roux ] [x] 21:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

Ah, so the only way to meet your requirements was to copy, verbatim, the proposed wording at Talk:Commonwealth realm. How about my above points? --G2bambino (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You agreed to that wording. [ roux ] [x] 21:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I said it was fine. That doesn't mean it has to be repeated word for word everywhere else; the same thing can be said in different ways. Now, how about my above points? --G2bambino (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason it shouldn't be used everywhere, as it quite neatly removes any of these problems. Fixed # of monarchies, fixed italicisation, 'no agreement' is amply demonstrated by the number of arguments for and against. I'll be addressing the cherrypicked quotations later; Boleslaw, as you well know, stated explicitly that personal unions no longer exist, for example. Cheers. [ roux ] [x] 22:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Print it word for word, folks. Canada's days as a monarchy are gradually coming to an end (the 22nd century is around the corner). GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry GD, what did I miss? And I don't think the monarchy will be abolished in our lifetimes, what with constitutional amendments required, and all that. [ roux ] [x] 23:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
It's my smarty pants way of hinting at how long this dispute may go on. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Well.. I don't think it can go on any longer. Everyone agreed on a specific wording at the article from which this article stems, that wording's here now, I don't see what there is to dispute. [ roux ] [x] 23:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The dispute is over? jolly good, folks. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Though there's equally no reason the exact same wording should be used everywhere, yes, the dispute is over. I simply hoped we were all smart enough to be able to write the same thing without using the same words. I've removed the excess as noted by both Roux and myself. --G2bambino (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Insults, now? Great. There is one extremely good reason for using the same wording: it has been agreed-upon by a variety of users to be accurate and lacking in POV. Your former edits to this page were neither. [ roux ] [x] 21:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you percieve insult in my commentary. Whatever my former edits were, they were not proof that the same thing cannot be said in a different manner. --G2bambino (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
You know you intended an insult, so don't be disingenuous. You're completely correct that your former edits weren't proof that the same thing can't be said in a different manner, since you weren't saying the same thing. It's really, really simple: a wording was agreed upon by several people, yourself included, that has no POV and is accurate. There is simply no good reason not to use it, especially when the wordings you were using absolutely did not say the same thing. Just abide by what you agreed to, it's not difficult. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over; you're welcome to get the last word in if you like. [ roux ] [x] 22:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I did not; please stop being presumptuous. I was indeed attempting to say the same thing, whether or not I did it successfully. It was, however, very difficult to get you to finally point out what exactly it was that made my wording unacceptable. Once done, I fixed it. --G2bambino (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
He is not being presumptuous. The point roux and I make is perfectly clear. Roux has acknowledged your explanation. The responses are repetitious and most superficial. This has simply wasted time. Having read the article, and read to the one point you make enough times, I'll edit the quotation so it reflects the whole quote and the view of the writer. --Lawe (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal union - quote out of context

The following footnote appears in the article: Micklem, Micklem (1930). The Australian Quarterly. Australian Institute of Political Science, 36-38. "...there are now half a dozen States who have a common sovereign - a large scale personal union..."

I thought it was a curious thing, so I borrowed the book and found it was out of context.

The author is not Micklem but K. H. Bailey, Professor of Jurisprudence, in the university of Melbourne. He writes:

"What light to the propsals of the experts throw upon the interpretation of the report of 1926? Clearly they suggest that rapid steps should be taken to give effect to the definition of Dominion status in its literal - and widest - sense. Now there have been eminent critics, both British and foreign, who have not hesitated to say that, on this interpretation, the true analysis of the British Commonwealth is that there are now half a dozen States who have a common sovereign - a large-scale personal union. To speak in terms of a personal union is perhaps to use out-worn terminology, and to miss the significance of a development sui generis in constitutional law. Possibly the real contrast cannot be described more precisely than as one between a body of communities whose relations are "unitary" and a body whose relations are, in a phrase of Sir Harrison Moore's, "given over to severalness." Be that as it may, the contention of the critics above-mentioned is vigorously and cogently denied."

The 1926 report is that of the Imperial Conference of that year. I hope this provides further reflection on the necessarily to check quotes for context in certain circumstances. --Lawe (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Another misquote? [ roux ] [x] 03:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
We have an excellent library and resources here. DYK there is a reference to the Koyoto Conference in the same 1930 volume! --Lawe (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) This is a good thing. My point was, I now know of at least three personal union references that have been mis- or selectively-quoted. How many more are there? [ roux ] [x] 03:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Where's the misquote? --G2bambino (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Misquote, selective quote, not much difference between the two. Someone quoted only part of the relevant passage while ignoring the rest of it. [ roux ] [x] 03:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I still don't see where the actual problem is in the article. --G2bambino (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The selective quote implies total support for the term, while the passage clearly states otherwise. [ roux ] [x] 03:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
You're still not pointing out where the problem is in the article, if there is any. --G2bambino (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll be clearer. The source is used as a reference for use of the term 'personal union' as a definition for the relationship between the Commonwealth realms. Using a reference to support that requires that the reference actually says that, whereas this reference is pretty clear that it regards the term as "out-worn" and advances other suggestions. This isn't the first reference in regards to this subject that has been carefully selectively quoted. [ roux ] [x] 03:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for being clearer. The source is used to support the statement that "personal union" has been used as a definition of the relationship between the Commonwealth realms. The source explicitly states that "personal union" has been used as a definition of the relationship between the Commonwealth realms. The sources certainly says more than that, but, in this context, the rest isn't pertinent. Unless you think the paragraph here should expand beyond what it presently is; though, that would upset the agreed upon wording from Talk:Commonwealth realm. --G2bambino (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) The rest is absolutely pertinent, as the source itself isn't calling the relationship a personal union, indeed is arguing against it. You really can't use a source that says "X is not Y" to say "X is ... Y"; that's the arena of movie marketing campaigns. [ roux ] [x] 03:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The source says: "...there have been eminent critics, both British and foreign, who have not hesitated to say that, on this interpretation, the true analysis of the British Commonwealth is that there are now half a dozen States who have a common sovereign - a large-scale personal union." The article says: "terms such as personal union... have... been advanced to describe this relationship." The eminent critics, both British and foreign, are the ones who advanced the term personal union to describe the relationship between the Commonwealth realms. It's quite simple, really. --G2bambino (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, condescension. This conversation is now over. [ roux ] [x] 04:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you percieve condesension in my commentary; that was not the intent. But, yes, there doesn't seem to be much more to discuss on this matter. --G2bambino (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, perhaps just this point: the link to Google Book Search says the author is The Rev. Canon Micklem M.D. --G2bambino (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The writer of the introduction to the whole magazine was Micklem. It is insufficient to quote from material you have not read - poor scholarship overall. It is 100% misleading because neither Micklem or Bailey are responsible for the statement, and Baily disagrees. This is a debate about the equality of Canada with the United Kingdom. The critics of such equality are not saying a personal union exists. They are saying the Balfour declaration should not be interpreted in a very liberal, wide way because that would be 'personal union'. --Lawe (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Does the source, or does it not, say: "Now there have been eminent critics, both British and foreign, who have not hesitated to say that, on this interpretation, the true analysis of the British Commonwealth is that there are now half a dozen States who have a common sovereign - a large-scale personal union"? --G2bambino (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It does, but quoting that out of context misleads the reader. It is akin to taking "Saying this is a good movie is a bit of an overstatement" from a critic, and quoting only "...this is a good movie..." in the marketing campaign. [ roux ] [x] 15:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would, if one was quoting out of context. If the source says the above, then it supports the satement "terms such as personal union... have... been advanced to describe this relationship." "[E]minent critics, both British and foreign" called the relationship "half a dozen States who have a common sovereign - a large-scale personal union". It's not proving that personal union is any kind of accurate term, it's proving that the term was used to describe the relationship. --G2bambino (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
But the way you are using the reference, including the extremely selective quote you originally used for it, implies that the term is correct, when the source is saying the exact opposite. Once again you are ignoring the spirit in favour of the letter. [ roux ] [x] 15:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You are still assuming this is about proving something to be correct. Again, it is not. The source supports the claim that the term was used to describe the relationship. --G2bambino (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not. I'm looking at the context of the selective quote and the context it is used in. Each action--the selective quoting, or the way it is used--would on its own imply something far beyond the specific letter of what is said. This is not an acceptable use of sources. Sure, you are not explicitly using the source to say something, but the implication is quite clear, and violates the spirit of NPOV if not the strict black-letter. [ roux ] [x] 16:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It was you who said "But the way you are using the reference... implies that the term is correct." It is not about making the term correct, it is about making the claim that the term has been used correct. I trust that you must be able to see the difference. --G2bambino (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I won't be sucked into another drawn-out ridiculous argument over semantics. Bottom line: you used a selective quote and a poorly-placed reference to make a very specific implication about the meaning of that reference and advance the POV that you have attempted to advance on multiple articles. The POV you are pushing is not supported by the quote you are using, period. Using the source to support the implication is POV, period. Using sources for their textual content while ignoring their actual meaning violates at least WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, in spirit if not in actual black letter. It also goes against the very basis of good scholarship. I have made my position perfectly clear; if you disagree with it so much then get someone from the NPOV noticeboard to look at it. Bye. [ roux ] [x] 16:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You certainly have made your position clear, but it remains unsupported by actual evidence. Indeed, you're still willfully turning away from the point that there is no attempt to prove the term correct, only to prove correct the claim that the term has been used. That is not a matter of semantics; there is a vast difference between the two arguments. --G2bambino (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the purpose of the reference is. What matters is that it creates an implication that is not true. [ roux ] [x] 19:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Prove that. --G2bambino (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(out) I have, at length. Your usual failure to accept it is really not my concern. [ roux ] [x] 19:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If only G2bambino understood the subtext of personal union ... --Lawe (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If only GoodDay's wiki-break suggestion, would be adopted by all on these Canadian monarchy articles. At least the edit wars have stopped (thanks to the 1RR restriction, of course). GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why I should be forbidden from editing articles because I refuse to give in to G2bambino's POV-pushing. [ roux ] [x] 19:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Still waiting for proof to support your accusations. --G2bambino (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It's already been provided and responded to by you. Your refusal to accept that is really, really not my problem, but I will try, one last time: yes, the source alludes to the fact that other people have used the term. This is not in dispute. However, the implication--especially considering the very selective quote you used, which has now been fixed by me--is that the source agrees with the term. This is misrepresentation of the source. If you want a reference that uses the term, use a reference that does not explicitly say that it feels the term is incorrect. You are, again, ignoring the actual meaning of what the source says in favour of strict textual copying.
By analogy:
Roger Ebert writes a movie review that includes the statement "Some critics have said this is a good movie. They are very wrong." -- this would be a good source for a WP statement such as "There is disagreement on the merits of this movie."
You are using that reference thus: "...critics have said this is a good movie."
While it is very technically correct inasmuch as those words do actually appear in the source, using the reference in that way is a clear misrepresentation of what the source actually means. Most people will see an article that says "critics have said this is a good movie"[1] and (rightly) think that the reference is to a critic saying it is a good movie. They will not think "Hey, that must be a reference to someone who is only quoting another critic and then completely disagreeing." The superior method is to actually use the actual sources which actually use the term, which in this analogy would mean using the writings of the critics who said it was a good movie.
So. In this situation, using Bailey as a source for 'personal union' suggests to the reader that Bailey has used the term, not that Bailey is referring to others using the term, is therefore misleading and pushing a POV against that of the source, and is wrong.
[ roux ] [x] 20:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Finally, it seems you're seeing the truth of the matter: as the source alludes to the fact that other people have used the term, then it supports the sentence "terms such as personal union... have... been advanced..." The existence of any further arguments and implications within that simple statement remains unfounded. --G2bambino (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
What? Stop twisting my words. It only technically supports the statement, while implying to the reader that the source supports the use of the term. [ roux ] [x] 20:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Twisting your words? I'm sorry, I'm unaware of having done so. You admit the source supports the fact that other people have used the term. Using the source to support a claim in the article that the term has been used, then, is implying the source supports the use of the term how, exactly? In other words, you seem to be objecting to an argument being made in the article in favour of the term "personal union" - your analogy being: "Some critics have said this is a good movie. They are very wrong," being used to say "...critics have said this is a good movie." But, the only way that would parallel what's in the article would be if the article said "personal union has been used to describe the relationship," and nothing further. However, the article does go on to say that the term "personal union" is not wholly accepted as the right one to use in the context of the Commownealth realms, and actually uses the same source to support the existence of objection. Nothing is, therefore, being taken out of context. --G2bambino (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Look. I have explained time and time and time and time again why the use of that reference implies something that it does not say. You are refusing to listen. This is not my problem. I have made the point clear, and I have invited you to bring in a third opinion if you object so strenuously. That you have not done so is your choice. This argument is over, you're free to get the last word in if it's important to you. [ roux ] [x] 20:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Not agreeing is not the same as not listening. I very explicitily read your argument and then showed how it didn't apply; I'm not sure how you get from that that I'm not paying attention to you. --G2bambino (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring and dismissing isn't the same as not agreeing. This is exactly the same behaviour you have exhibited on countless other talk pages, most notably Talk:Commonwealth realm. Your continued insistence on making textual quotes while ignoring their context is a direct violation of WP:POINT and WP:WIKILAWYER. I suggest you re-read them. And I suggest you either, to be perfectly blunt, either get a third opinion or drop it already. Go away and do something that's productive to the project and stop wasting my time. [ roux ] [x] 21:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, they aren't the same. The fact that I've addressed all of your points demonstrates irrefutably, however, that I have neither ignored nor dismissed you. I don't believe, either, that you have any proof of my trying to take quotes out of their context, which means your accusations against me have no merit. I would suggest that you redirect the effort you put into demonising me towards productive discussion instead. --G2bambino (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

He is not being presumptuous. The point roux and I make is perfectly clear. Roux has acknowledged your explanation. The responses are repetitious and most superficial. This has simply wasted time. Having read the article, and read to the one point you make enough times, I'll edit the quotation so it reflects the whole quote and the view of the writer. --Lawe (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Your point is clear, but unfounded. Roux, further, never substantiated his claim that I was pushing a POV. His attempts to do so were struck down by contravening facts. In the face of those, he simply gave up. I don't know whether or not he thought it was my wish to dismiss and delete the wider part of the source you provided (which wasn't earlier ignored by me, I simply couldn't see it), he won't really say, but it wasn't. The point remains that I believe the source supports two statements in the article: 1) people used the term "personal union" to describe the relationship between the Commonwealth realms, and 2) other people disagreed with that interpretation. How that promotes a POV, I have no idea. --G2bambino (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I have explained precisely why it is pushing a POV: because there is a direct implication--of which you were fully aware when you so carefully selectively quoted the source--of meaning which the source quite simply doesn't support. There were no 'contravening facts', and I haven't 'given up' because of these invisible things--I had left the discussion because you are doing what so many people have pointed out that you do in every discussion: you stall, you endlessly nitpick, you bog down in minutiae of semantics, you IDHT at every turn, you continually repeat the same thing forcing people to repeat and repeat and repeat what they have already said; in short, you game the system until people get so fed up with arguing in circles that we just give up because arguing with you is a Sisyphean task. It's slow, it's painful, and right when you think it's over--BAM! the rock comes crashing back down the hill. Rather than actually comprehending why I left the discussion yesterday--namely, your behaviour--you instead put a spin on it that leaves you as the only person who is actually contributing to a discussion while insulting me as someone who runs away with his tail between his legs as soon as (supposed) facts are (supposedly) presented. You do this all the time, everywhere; what you say is fact, what other people say are 'claims', for example. I could go into probably a hundred more examples of how you do this, but I have better things to do with my time.
The bottom line is this: we all know you have a POV about the words 'personal union'. We've all seen the ridiculous lengths you went to at Commonwealth realm to try and avoid the fact that there are virtually no sources which support the use of the term to describe the Commonwealth monarchies while there are many, many sources which categorically and explicitly state that the term is simply not accurate and/or is woefully out of date. We've all seen your selective quoting of sources, your subtle misrepresentations of sources, your OR and SYN (most especially on the Zines quote) to not only push your POV, but to claim that your sources have said something which they absolutely and categorically have not. These are all things you are widely known for, and indeed are contained in a convenient summary--endorsed by people uninvolved in any conflict with you--at your RfC/U.
The thing about your POV is that it is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. The only sources which appear to support your contention are seventy years old, and few and far between. The sources which directly and flatly contradict your contention range from at least 1930 right up to the past couple of years--and that's even if we only use the sources which you deem 'relevant'! You can keep trying to push it if you like, but both Lawe and myself (mostly Lawe; I've been busy doing other things) are working on erasing this POV from Wikipedia in favour of facts. You can try to reinsert it, you can try to sneak it in by implication (as you did with the quote at hand), you can try whatever you want... but it won't work. You are pushing a POV that is unsupported, proven by the fact that you have to selectively quote your sources and engage in OR and SYN (Zines, Corbett, to name two) to even get them to agree with you, or grasp at offhand comments in a court case from 1999 that is itself quoting a court case from somewhere around 1930--while claiming that the source clearly and unambiguously supports the use of the term.
You are clearly intelligent. Claiming that you 'don't see' how there's any implication derived from using a reference to support the use of a term (in a strictly textual sense) when that source clearly and explicitly argues against the use of that term falls somewhere on the spectrum between 'disingenuous' and 'dishonest'. I'm trying to A as much GF as I can, here, but you make it impossible.
In short, please get over it. You're wrong, your POV is wrong, your continued attempts to push it will be met with complete opposition in complete accordance with NPOV. I left the discussion because of your behaviour. Which is why I said I left the discussion because of your behaviour. I really urge you to try actually reading what people write, rather than putting--to use your words--a self-beneficial spin on it, a spin that somehow always leaves you looking like either the champion of facts and rational discourse, or the poor victim of crusaders out to discredit your good name, and somehow always leaves your opponents as sad little people who run away at the first glimpse of facts.
Again, I urge you: go get a third opinion, open a MedCab, file a RFAR or just drop it already. Stop wasting all of our time. [ roux ] [x] 17:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
More claims of POV pushing on my part with no support behind them other than personal opinions, and all in denial of what has already been said: I didn't selectively quote the source; I never made any attempt to deny the existence of presented sources; I was not the one who originally found and added the Zines source; I never tried to make the source say what it didn't; etc., etc. You may believe these things to be true, and you may believe your version of the truth is "widely accepted", but I can say without doubt that you are much more off than on in your take on what the truth is; not that I have much faith in your even considering that statement. That your perceived truth about me is mostly wrong is disappointing, but that you believe your truth to be absolutely unshakable is disturbing. I'm not going to pursue the issue of where the source applies as there's already another source that suffices. However, it is your penchant for using every discussion between you and I as a platform to launch unfounded personal accusations and make disparaging insinuations against me that I cannot tolerate, and which will have to come to an end one way or the other. You have the free will to stop doing it, so I honestly hope you will see fit to by your own volition. --G2bambino (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Your POV pushing is well documented. Your use of sources to support positions they don't support is well documented. My 'version' of the truth is widely accepted--look at your own RFC/U. When completely uninvolved people are agreeing, don't you think that says something? There are no unfounded personal accusations, and it's typical of your behaviour that you would claim that in the face of piles and piles and piles of evidence to the contrary. I make no 'insinuations' about you--that's your territory. I state facts, I provide evidence. If you want people to stop saying the same things about your behaviour that they've been saying for three years, I suggest you change your behaviour. [ roux ] [x] 19:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
And one more thing: get that thing out of your sandbox and actually post the RfC/U already. You've had it going as a threat for at least a month and a half now. Either do it and get it over with or delete it as you agreed to do in September. [ roux ] [x] 19:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Yet, the documentation doesn't seem to exist, or, where it does, doesn't irrefutably support the argument. Even the RfC/U isn't decisive in its entirety; it is rife with complaints from people who were thwarted by me in their own attempts to push a POV on Wikipedia. It also, though, contains valid points. Regardless, that has little to do with carting a personal bias about my character to every talk page, and founding on it opinions regarding content disputes. Doing that is what leads to false conceptions, and thus false accusations, and explodes the conversation into an argument over a user's character. I am changing my behaviour; I have been since I started editing here. I note you've made some alterations in your patter of action as well. But, the evidence I've amassed at my sandbox might suggest you have more to do. And, far from being any threat, I'm just not in a rush and have been giving you time to demonstrate whether or not it need be filed at all. Though I'm very close to going ahead with it, I can still be persuaded to change my mind. --G2bambino (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Do it or delete it. Pick one, else I will ask an uninvolved admin to delete it as an attack page. [ roux ] [x] 19:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
That's your reply to my offer; another ultimatum? As you please, Roux. --G2bambino (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
What offer? What ultimatum? I'm giving you a choice and letting you know what I will do depending on the choice you make. I believe the appropriate phrase is: "Put up or shut up." Either do it or don't, it's your choice, but I am sick and bloody tired of a threat hanging over my head. [ roux ] [x] 19:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's the offer: one more chance to show me it won't be necessary to file the RfC/U. --G2bambino (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
And do that how, exactly? Either do it or stop threatening me. Pick one. [ roux ] [x] 20:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Lawe's latest edit

Hi Lawe. I appreciate what you did with this edit, and I agree with it (although the bit about the Irish Free State is news to me). But we all did agree on a compromise at Talk:Commonwealth realm, and it really would be best to abide by it, as I pointed out to G2 above. Could you please revert your change? [ roux ] [x] 07:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Let's hope your astonishing patience and diplomacy produces some sort of respite. --Lawe (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm trying. Are you able to get your hands on the other references used here and Commonwealth realm and Personal union and at least 16 Monarchy of X articles? They definitely need to be checked. Maybe if you can let me know what you can't find, I'll go to the reference library and see what they've got. [ roux ] [x] 08:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Role of Queen Elizabeth in current events (suspension of parliament)

We know the role that the Gov General played in the current suspension of parlaiment requested by Harper.

What role does the Queen have in this event?

As the Queen's representative, is the gov general required to dialog or communicate with the queen in this matter?

Is there any coverage in the UK regarding this event and it's relationship with the monarchy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.219.48 (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Queen enters the picture, when the GG or Harper request her involvement. Had the GG rejected Harper's request for Parliamentaty suspension, he likley would've ask the Queen to either replace Michelle Jean or over-rule her. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice

NOTE: Source material from this article was used in the article Canadian sovereignty. I'm in the process right now of giving all appropriate editors due credit. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 16:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada/Archive_4&oldid=1137018178"